delete_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that deletion is permanent, whether related data is cascaded, or what happens to associated work items or release tags. It also lacks permission requirements or response format. The verb 'delete' implies destructiveness, but the description goes no further.

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 extremely concise—two sentences total—and front-loads the key action. Every word earns its place, with the parameter definition structured clearly under 'Args.' No unnecessary elaboration or repetition.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the deletion does to related entities, whether it is reversible, or what success/failure looks like. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is minimal but leaves important operational questions unanswered.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter, stating 'release_id: UUID of the release.' This goes beyond the schema's bare type definition (string) by clarifying that it is a UUID and identifying the release. The description compensates for the lack of schema-level 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 the action: 'Delete a release by ID.' It uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (release), distinguishing it from sibling tools like retrieve_release or update_release. The ID parameter is explicitly mentioned, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage by stating what the tool does, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There are no stated exclusions or mentions of related tools like archive_release or soft-delete options. However, the purpose is clear enough that the implied usage is acceptable for a straightforward delete operation.

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