delete_release

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

The annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior, but the description adds valuable context: the delete is actually a non-destructive archive, the release can be restored via the UI, and linked test runs/launches are preserved. This meaningfully clarifies the impact beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two compact sentences carry exactly the necessary information. The first sentence front-loads the core action, and the second adds important behavioral detail with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter soft-delete operation with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description is complete. It explains what occurs, what is preserved, and how the action is reversible, which is enough for an agent to invoke the tool safely.

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 already documents the single releaseId parameter as 'Release UUID to archive' with 100% coverage. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond reaffirming that the operation is an archive, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Soft delete (archive) a release') and identifies the specific resource. It does not explicitly call out sibling distinctions, but 'soft delete' versus a permanent delete and the resource name make the purpose clear.

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 intended use: archive a release while preserving linked test runs and launches. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which alternative to choose if a hard delete, update, or restore is needed.

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