link_launches_to_release

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifically clarifies that launches are linked by reference rather than copied. This helps an agent understand the semantic effect of the operation without contradicting the annotations.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The main action is stated first, and the contrast with manual runs adds crucial context without repetition or unnecessary text.

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 small parameter set, the annotations, and the explicit schema descriptions, the description is sufficient in scope. It lacks an explicit output/return mention, but no output schema exists; behavioral and idempotency clues are already present through annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both releaseId and launchIds, including where to obtain launch UUIDs. The description does not significantly add per-parameter detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not push higher.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Link automated test runs (launches) to a release') and explicitly distinguishes this from manual runs, making it easy to understand what the tool does. The clarity is reinforced by the contrast 'unlike manual runs' and the 'by reference (not copied)' detail.

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 clear context by explaining this is for automated test runs and that launches are linked by reference, which implies it is the correct tool when connecting launches to releases. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the manual-run distinction provides reasonable usage guidance.

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