Release calendar

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint annotations by disclosing failure modes (400 ORG_REQUIRED with a list of choices, 403 for project-bound keys), the auth model, and the critical behavioral fact that the tool only proposes a batch rather than executing a release. 'Read-only' does echo the annotation, but the surrounding detail is substantive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (contents, batching semantics, defaults, auth, return shape). The prose is dense and somewhat comma-spliced into long clauses, but nothing is filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the return keys ({ rows, batchSuggestion, note }), and it covers scope, defaults, error codes, and permission requirements. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly without opening the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single organizationId param, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by spelling out the omitted-parameter fallback and the multi-organization error path (400 ORG_REQUIRED lists the choices), which the schema description does not mention.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the release calendar of one organization') and enumerates exactly what it contains: live apps, merged-but-unshipped fixes, store state, and a release batch suggestion. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_store_status and get_auto_release_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the workflow boundary explicitly — 'Mushi only proposes the batch; your CI builds and submits' — which tells the agent what this tool will and will not do. It also gives the key-scope precondition (account-level key vs project-bound 403), though it never names an alternative sibling tool to use instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.