Github Delete Release

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful nuance: the tag survives unless delete_tag is set, and the release is always removed before the tag, avoiding the dangling-release state the guard protects against. It also explains why no force flag is needed. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate.

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 not bloated, but the second and third sentences are dense and jargon-laden, referencing 'the delete_tag tool refuses to touch' and a cryptic 'See #404.' The core purpose is front-loaded, but the extra behavioral rationale could be stated more plainly and compactly.

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 covers the key destructive behavior and tag interplay, and an output schema exists so return details need not be explained. However, it relies on internal references like '#404' and the unnamed 'delete_tag tool,' which may confuse an agent. Explicitly naming github_delete_tag and stating when to use it would make this more 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 only 25%, so the description carries some burden. It adds real value for delete_tag, explaining that it removes the tag without the force check, and clarifies that tag_name is the tag the release was published from. However, repo_owner and repo_name receive no explanatory treatment, and their semantics are left entirely to naming convention.

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 object: 'Deletes a release.' It also clarifies the relationship to the release's tag, which distinguishes it from sibling github_delete_tag and github_update_release. The purpose is unambiguous and the resource is named explicitly.

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 on when the optional delete_tag parameter matters and references the delete_tag tool's guard behavior. It does not explicitly say 'use github_delete_tag when you only want to delete a tag,' but the tag-survival explanation strongly implies the division of labor between this tool and the tag-deletion tool.

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