prepare_release_notes

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's behavior: it checks BCP-47 locale codes and character limits per platform, with 'both' using Android's stricter limit. It does not mention side effects or response format, but as a validation tool, the core behavior is well described.

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 with zero fluff. Front-loaded purpose, followed by necessary details. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers the validation rules and constraints adequately. It could mention return values (e.g., validation result structure) but is not strictly necessary given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'both' platform option and the specific character limits (Android 500, iOS 4000), going beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb 'validate' and clearly identifies the resource 'localized release notes' and the context 'before submitting to the App Store or Google Play'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_ios_store_listing' or 'upload_to_google_play' by focusing on validation, not submission.

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 states when to use the tool ('before submitting to the App Store or Google Play'), implying the workflow phase. It also provides guidance on using platform='both' for stricter validation. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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