create_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: name uniqueness, default status, the distinction between release_date and target_date (one displayed in UI, one not), and that the returned Release contains a nested description object. It could add permission or error details, but it gives solid behavioral context beyond a bare mutation.

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?

The description is well-structured with a one-line summary, an Args block, and a Returns block. Each parameter gets a concise, useful explanation; there is no fluff or repetition beyond minor redundancy in the release_date line. It earns its length.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions), the description is nearly complete: it covers every parameter, the return shape, and the uniqueness constraint. It could mention failure modes or permissions, but the output schema exists to cover return structure, and the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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?

The schema has zero description coverage, but the description explains all 10 parameters in plain language, including semantic distinctions (release_date vs target_date), expected formats (YYYY-MM-DD), and examples (external_source 'github'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a release in the workspace.' This unambiguously differentiates from sibling tools like update_release, delete_release, and list_releases. The added constraint 'Name must be unique in the workspace' further clarifies the tool's purpose and preconditions.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use it (to create a new release) and provides within-tool guidance such as 'Prefer release_date unless you specifically need this field' and the default for status. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like update_release or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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