set_phased_release

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

With minimal annotations (only readOnlyHint and destructiveHint), the description adds extensive behavioral detail: the rollout timeline, stateful nature, and effect of each action. It explains prerequisites and recovery scenarios, fully carrying the transparency burden.

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 a single paragraph, efficiently front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It sequentially covers the rollout concept, timeline, then each action with one-liner explanations. No redundant words; every sentence 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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers actions, timeline, and prerequisites well. Minor gaps: it doesn't specify if you can resume after complete, or describe return values. Overall, it's sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by embedding actions in practical context (e.g., 'use if a critical bug is found' for pause). While schema already describes each enum, the description enriches meaning for an AI agent.

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 clearly states the tool manages a phased rollout for an App Store version. It explains the timeline and four actions. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_rollout_fraction, the purpose is specific and 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 provides context for each action: create before submission, pause for critical bugs, resume to continue, complete to release fully. It gives practical scenarios, but lacks explicit exclusions or mention of alternatives (e.g., for immediate full release).

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