update_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the partial update behavior, the distinct semantics of release_date vs target_date (including that target_date is not shown in UI), and the return value. It does not mention permissions, error scenarios, or side effects, which would have made it more complete.

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 clear opening sentence, an Args block, and a Returns line. Every line adds information without redundancy, making it both concise and highly readable.

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 9-parameter update tool with no annotations, the description covers the essential semantics: partial update, parameter meanings, and the return value. It does not address edge cases like validation rules or permission requirements, and the role of target_date could be even more explicit, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description lists all 9 parameters with meaningful explanations. It adds crucial context, especially for release_date ('The date shown as Target date in the Plane UI') and target_date ('A separate date stored on the release but not shown in the release UI'), fully compensating for the schema gap.

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 opens with 'Update a release by ID', which clearly identifies the action and target resource. It further specifies partial update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), distinguishing it from other release-related tools like create_release or delete_release.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool (updating a specific release) and gives field-level guidance, such as 'Prefer release_date unless you specifically need this field.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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