delete_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the destructive action ('Delete') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether deletion is permanent/reversible, permission requirements, confirmation prompts, side effects, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive 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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the essential action and target. There's zero wasted language, making it easy to parse quickly despite its informational shortcomings.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter details, usage guidance, and output expectations. The conciseness comes at the cost of necessary information for safe operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'by ID' which hints at the release_id parameter, but provides no details about ID format, where to obtain it, or validation rules. The single parameter remains largely undocumented.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a release by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_asset or delete_story, but the resource specificity (release) provides adequate distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a valid release ID), consequences of deletion, or relationships with sibling tools like fetch_releases (to get IDs) or create_release (to create new ones).

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