Update Rollout

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies mutation ('Update') and mentions the special behavior of 'Set to 100 to complete', but it does not describe side effects, reversibility, or any requirements (e.g., permission or staged-release status). The description is not misleading but leaves these details uncovered, which is a moderate gap for an update operation.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the primary purpose, and the second provides direct usage guidance. No filler or redundant content; every line earns its place.

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 simple tool with a fully documented input schema and an output schema (per context signals), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, and how to complete the rollout. There are no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse the tool. The missing behavioral details are minor given the simplicity and schema completeness.

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 100% (all four parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a little extra meaning by clarifying the direction ('increase or decrease') and the effect of setting to 100, but it does not add new parameter details beyond what the schema already states (e.g., the '0-100' range). This is adequate but not rich.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'rollout percentage for a staged release', specifically distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'halt_release' or 'promote_release'. The focus on percentage adjustment makes the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this to increase or decrease the percentage of users receiving an update' and 'Set to 100 to complete the rollout'. This tells the agent when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given the sibling set includes related release tools, a brief note on not using it for halting or promoting would have earned a 5.

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