play_release_to_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses significant behavioral traits: production is 'the point of no return,' subject to policy review, while testing tracks 'publish immediately with no review gate.' It could add more about side effects (e.g., overwriting previous releases) but the provided cautions are valuable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by essential caveats. Every sentence earns its place without fluff.

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 release tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the critical context: production risk, human confirmation, and instant publishing for testing tracks. It could mention how to verify the release afterwards (e.g., via play_app_status) or prerequisites, but it is largely complete for the described purpose.

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 67%. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining track semantics — production vs. testing, and custom closed-testing track names. It also clarifies that version_code is from play_upload_bundle. It does not expound on status, rollout_fraction, or release_notes, but the schema partially covers those.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Assign an uploaded versionCode to a release track and publish it there.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like play_upload_bundle (uploading) or play_update_listing (listing updates).

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?

Provides clear context on when to use the tool: production vs. testing tracks, and the review gate difference. It explicitly warns to 'confirm with the human first for production.' However, it does not name alternative tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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