Promote 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 this is a mutating operation, potential side effects (e.g., affecting users in the target track), or any prerequisites (e.g., release must exist in source track). The description is minimal and lacks transparency about the operation's impact.

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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 (5 parameters, 4 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the promotion process, any constraints (e.g., track hierarchy), or what the output represents. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description lacks operational context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given high coverage. The description does not clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., that 'rollout_percentage' is optional and defaults to 100), but the schema already provides that.

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 ('Promote a release') and the resource ('from one track to another'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'halt_release' or 'update_rollout'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the package or version context, but the schema covers that.

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 the use case (promoting releases between tracks) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_rollout' or 'deploy_app'. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned, so the agent must infer from the name and schema.

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