update_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that write permission is required and explains that sending only specific fields in the `updates` object achieves a partial update. It also enumerates all updatable fields, which is useful. However, it does not state return value or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives the key instruction and list of fields. It is concise and front-loaded with the action, with no redundant fluff. The field list is long but necessary for quick reference, though it somewhat duplicates the schema.

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 tool has a nested object and moderate complexity, and the description covers purpose, permission, and partial-update behavior. However, it does not mention any return value or outcome (e.g., whether the updated release is returned), nor does it address edge cases like empty `updates` objects or invalid fields. Since there is no output schema, a brief mention of expected response would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema description covers 100% of parameters with basic descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the partial-update mechanism for the `updates` object ('Send only the fields you want to change'), which clarifies how the nested object should be used. This pushes it above baseline.

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 'Modify an existing release,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_release and get_release. It also states the partial-update nature, making the purpose 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 description implies usage by saying 'Modify an existing release,' which suggests you would only call this when a release already exists, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like 'use create_release for new releases' or 'use get_release to view.' No exclusions are listed, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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