update_release

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish mutation behavior and non-destructive nature. The description adds that it only works on draft releases and cannot publish or change published releases, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't clarify what happens to updated metadata when a release is later published, or whether partial updates are supported.

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, efficient sentence of about 15 words that conveys the core purpose and a key constraint. No wasted words. It could arguably be expanded to cover parameter interplay, but for its length it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 tool has 9 parameters with 86% undocumented, no output schema, and mutation behavior. The description covers the fundamental draft-only constraint but leaves the agent without guidance on which fields are mutable, how tag changes interact with draft state, or validation behavior. For a 9-param update tool with strong side effects, this is thin but minimally adequate.

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 only 11% (only repository has a description). The description doesn't elaborate on any of the 9 parameters — no meaning is added for body, name, tagName, prerelease, targetCommitish, etc. beyond their basic type constraints. With low coverage and no description-level param detail, the agent must infer semantics from names alone. This is a meaningful gap but the dimension baseline is 3 given schema exists.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Update metadata for an existing draft release') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by scoping to draft releases. It also differentiates from create_release (which creates) and notes that published releases cannot be changed.

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 clearly scopes usage to draft releases and explicitly states published releases cannot be changed by this tool. It doesn't mention alternatives for handling published releases, but the 'only draft' constraint provides clear boundaries. Since create_release is the sibling for creating new ones, the context is reasonably clear.

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