Update a release

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

Annotations provide no destructive or readOnly hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior and the specific 403 error for locked fields, including that the error surfaces which fields are locked. This goes beyond minimal expectations.

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 concise sentences that front-load the main action ('Update a release’s metadata') and immediately provide essential usage details. 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?

For a simple update tool with two parameters, the description covers the key behavioral aspect (locked fields) and partial update pattern. It does not describe the success response, but given no output schema, this is acceptable. The mention of 'same field set as create_release' provides helpful reference.

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 50%; the 'fields' parameter is described as 'Release fields to change (same field set as create_release)', which adds context. However, 'release_id' has no description beyond type and exclusiveMinimum. The description reinforces partial update semantics but doesn't fully compensate for missing parameter documentation.

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 description clearly states it updates a release's metadata, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_release, delete_release, and distribute_release by focusing on modification of existing metadata.

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 clear context for when to use (update metadata) and critical guidance about locked fields after submission/distribution. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, though the locked-field error handling serves as a negative guideline.

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