update_release_changelog

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: plain text is converted to HTML and a ProseMirror doc, description_html is ignored when set, description_json overrides the generated doc, and the editor would show nothing if the doc is absent. This goes well beyond basic 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?

The description is well-structured with Args and Returns sections, front-loads the main purpose, and has no fluff. It is slightly verbose due to the rendering explanation, but every sentence adds necessary detail about parameter behavior.

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?

The description covers all four parameters, explains their interactions and edge cases, notes the return value, and the presence of an output schema means return-value details are not omitted. It is fully self-contained for a tool of this complexity.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: release_id is a UUID, description_html is the HTML body, description_stripped is a plain-text convenience that gets wrapped into HTML and ProseMirror, and description_json is an optional ProseMirror doc that takes precedence. This compensates entirely for the lack of schema 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a release's changelog body.' This is a specific verb-resource pair and differentiates it from sibling tools like update_release (general release fields) and get_release_changelog (reading the changelog).

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 gives detailed guidance on parameter precedence (e.g., 'Ignored if description_html is set' and 'it wins over the doc generated from description_stripped'), but it does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives like update_release or get_release_changelog. Usage context is implied by the tool name and first sentence, but no explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' is provided.

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