Control a phased release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: the 7-day window, that 'complete' means release to 100%, and that this is a Pro-gated feature. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens to a paused release.

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 fragments with zero filler; the core action and the 7-day scope are front-loaded before the qualifying 'Pro feature' note. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, full schema coverage and a destructive annotation, the description supplies the essential framing: duration, action set, and gating. It omits failure modes and state-transition rules, which keeps it slightly short of complete.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the irreversible nature of 'complete' via the confirm field. The description only lightly clarifies 'complete (release to 100%)', which is already implied by the enum. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb (control) and resource (the 7-day phased rollout) and enumerates the four supported actions, which map exactly to the action enum. It is clearly distinct in scope from siblings like release_version or submit_for_review, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage is implied by the action list and the 'Pro feature' caveat, so an agent can infer this manages an in-flight rollout. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or ordering (e.g. must start before pausing), and no named alternative.

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