Remove a version from a track (composite)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds admirably. It discloses the composite operation (fetch, filter, commit) and critically clarifies the non-destructive scope: it only unpublishes the version, does not delete the artifact, and notes that Google Play does not support deleting bundles/APKs.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by a practical example and an important caveat about scope. No wasted words.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is complete: it explains what the tool does, how it works, and its limitations. An agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly and understand the outcome.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no new semantic details about the parameters themselves beyond what is in the schema.

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 (removes) and resource (a versionCode from a track's active releases), and clarifies the composite nature by describing the underlying mechanism (fetch, filter, commit). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like play_update_track or play_release_to_track.

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?

Provides a concrete use case ('to pull a bad build off production'), which implies when a developer would use this tool. It doesn't name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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