configure_manual_release_candidate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive replacement of ALL existing actions and start conditions, notes that enabled state is preserved, and names a required precondition. It doesn't state reversibility, permissions, or response behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four short sentences with the core action front-loaded and each sentence carrying distinct information (scope, prerequisite, preserved state, exclusion). No filler, though the density makes it read like a checklist.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 undocumented required parameters, the description covers behavior reasonably but leaves the parameter surface unexplained. An agent knows what the tool does to a workflow but not what to supply for workflowId, scheme, or audience.

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 0% across 4 required parameters, so the description must compensate and largely doesn't. 'One exact branch' loosely maps to branch and 'macOS archive' gestures at scheme, but workflowId and buildDistributionAudience (with its INTERNAL_ONLY/APP_STORE_ELIGIBLE enum) are never explained.

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 specific verbs and resources: replacing all actions with a macOS archive and all start conditions with manual builds from one exact branch. This is clear and distinguishable from sibling operations update_workflow_actions and update_workflow_start_conditions since it combines both. It does not explicitly name siblings, but the compound scope 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?

Gives an explicit prerequisite ('Requires TestFlight Deployment Preparation') and an explicit exclusion with an alternative ('Does not configure tester-group post-actions; use Xcode or App Store Connect for those'). It stops short of stating when to choose this over the granular update_workflow_actions/update_workflow_start_conditions siblings, so it's clear but not fully routing.

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