Update release track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the key non-obvious behavior: the operation is a full replacement, omitting a versionCode deletes that version, and it does not go live until play_commit_edit runs. It omits permission requirements and error/failure behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core replace semantics, then capabilities, then the workflow requirement and alternative. Every sentence earns its place, though the capability list slightly overlaps with the opening statement.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must stand on its own, and it covers replace semantics, the commit workflow, and sibling routing. It does not mention auth/scopes or the need to create an edit first (only implied by the editId param), leaving minor gaps.

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% with rich nested field descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the delete-by-omission semantics of the releases array, which is not obvious from the field documentation alone.

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?

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Replaces the full set of releases on a track') and the following sentences enumerate the concrete operations it enables (publish, change rollout, halt, remove). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling play_release_to_track, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

It states when to use this tool (publishing a version, changing rollout percentage, halting, removing) and names the exact alternative with its condition ('For a simple add this new version... use play_release_to_track instead'). It also names the required follow-up step (play_commit_edit), leaving little to inference.

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