manage_phased_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While it notes 'Pro feature' and explains that 'complete' releases to 100%, it does not mention that all actions alter the live rollout state, that 'complete' is irreversible (though noted in the schema's confirm parameter), or any other risks or prerequisites. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose, enumerates the actions, and includes a relevant note about the Pro requirement. 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?

The description gives the core purpose and actions, and the schema covers all parameter details. However, it lacks behavioral warnings (e.g., irreversible completion, live impact) and usage guidelines. For a simple control tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but not comprehensive enough to fully prepare the agent for safe invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by elaborating on the 'action' parameter: listing the valid actions and clarifying what 'complete' does ('release to 100%'). This goes beyond the schema's sparse 'Phased release action' description, though it does not add information about 'app_id' or 'confirm'.

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 ('Control') and resource ('7-day phased rollout'), enumerating the exact actions (start, pause, resume, complete) and clarifying that 'complete' means releasing to 100%. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling release tools like 'release_version' which likely handles full releases.

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: this tool is for managing a 7-day phased rollout. It implies when to use it (whenever controlling a phased rollout is needed) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Since the context is clear but no exclusions are stated, it earns a 4.

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