update_release

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the tool performs a partial update ('Only the fields supplied are sent') and warns that correcting a title will not wipe notes. It also discloses the make_latest constraint. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 tightly written sentences deliver the core behavior, the important partial-update caveat, and the boundary with create_release. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety and idempotency, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the key behavioral nuance (partial update) and the one notable parameter exclusion. It is slightly incomplete regarding the semantics of draft/prerelease and how to clear fields with explicit null, but overall it is sufficient for correct 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 only 43%, so the description carries additional responsibility. It usefully generalizes PATCH-like semantics to all optional parameters, and explains why make_latest is absent. However, it does not add meaning for the under-described fields draft, prerelease, repo_owner, and repo_name, leaving some semantic gaps for the agent to infer.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Changes a published release in place.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_release, delete_release, get_release, and list_releases. The mention that 'make_latest is settable on create_release alone' also reinforces the boundary against the create sibling.

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 makes clear when not to use this tool by stating that make_latest belongs on create_release. It implicitly tells the agent that creating a release or setting make_latest should go to create_release, while updating an existing release's in-place fields belongs here. It does not enumerate every sibling, but the key alternative is addressed explicitly.

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