Validate a release

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

Adds 'near-read check' and 'changes nothing' beyond the idempotentHint annotation. Describes output structure (errors list and errors_structured list), which is critical since no output schema exists.

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, no wasted words. First sentence covers purpose, second covers behavioral and usage guidance. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description explains return format, idempotency, and when to use. Lacks details on error handling or edge cases, but sufficient for a simple validation tool.

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 0%, so description must compensate. While it implicitly ties release_id to 'a release', it does not explicitly explain the parameter. The parameter name and type are self-explanatory, but a direct mention would improve clarity.

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?

Clearly states the verb (run validation), resource (release), and outcome (return problems blocking distribution). Distinguishes from sibling tools like distribute_release and get_quality_report by focusing on pre-distribution checks.

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 explicit instruction: 'Run it before distributing.' Also notes it is safe to repeat and changes nothing, guiding usage. Does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but gives clear context.

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