release_game_asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the tag precondition, but it never states that the file will be uploaded/attached to the release, whether existing assets are overwritten, what token scopes are required, or what success/failure looks like. For an externally mutating tool this is a significant transparency gap.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the critical prerequisite immediately after. There is no redundancy or filler; every clause 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?

The schema fully documents all seven parameters, so invocation-level information is largely covered. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits expected return behavior, overwrite semantics, token permission expectations, and selection guidance relative to full_upload_game. It is adequate but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema; the tag mapping, default upload target, and extension rules are already documented in the input schema.

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 states a clear action and target: publish the game installation package to GitHub/GitCode Release. It also adds the key precondition that the Release tag v{version} must already exist. It does not explicitly distinguish this step from the sibling full_upload_game, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives an explicit precondition: the corresponding Release tag must already exist. This implies the tool should not be used when the tag has not been created, and it suggests the tag must be prepared beforehand. However, no alternatives are named, and it does not compare against full_upload_game or other upload-related tools.

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