Github Create Release

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

The description transparently explains that overwriting published notes cannot be undone, precisely describes the update-path parameter subset, and tells the agent to read 'updated' on the reply. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=false while the description describes an irreversible overwrite, which is an annotation contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the core behavior and uses the second paragraph for necessary edge-case nuance. The reference to '#401' is cryptic and may not help an agent, but the overall length is justified by the behavioral complexity.

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 tool with 10 parameters, an output schema, and non-obvious update semantics, the description covers the surprising behaviors an agent needs to know, including dropped parameters and changelog replacement. It also points to a skill for conventions. The main weakness is the annotation contradiction rather than missing invocation context.

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 10%, and the description compensates by explaining the meaning of if_exists, the behavior of make_latest and generate_release_notes, and how body replaces the generated changelog. It does not explain obvious required fields like repo_owner, repo_name, tag_name, and release_name, but those are self-evident from naming.

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 precise action with a specific resource: 'Publishes a release for a tag.' It also clarifies the behavior when the tag already has a release, which distinguishes create semantics from tag creation or release update. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 text gives a concrete decision rule: fail by default on an existing release, or pass if_exists='update' to deliberately overwrite. It also directs the agent to github_get_skill('release-management') for workflow conventions. It does not compare directly with github_update_release, but the usage context is clear.

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