Update Release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description usefully adds that the update is partial (unspecified fields are preserved) and that write permission is required. It does not explain what makes this destructive — e.g. re-parenting via parentReleaseId or changing type/status — which is the most important behavior to disclose given the destructiveHint.

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 core instructions are front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing enumeration of 17 field names restates the schema's updates description almost verbatim and inflates the definition without adding information. Trimming that list would make it tighter.

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 3-param mutation tool with a nested updates object, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, the description covers the partial-update contract and the permission requirement but omits what is destroyed, reversibility, and any validation/error behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps given the complexity.

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 100%, and the schema's updates property already enumerates the updatable fields, so the description's field list largely duplicates structured data. It adds only marginal framing ("only the fields you want to change"), which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Modify an existing release." An agent can distinguish it from create_release, get_release and list_releases by the verb alone. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

"Send only the fields you want to change inside the updates object" gives clear partial-update guidance, and "Requires write permission" flags a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, nor any routing to create_release/get_release for other intents.

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