start_release

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

With no annotations present, the description provides useful behavioral detail: it runs gates, drafts release notes, asks policy whether a human is needed, and highlights that dry_run prevents tagging or publishing. It also explains the approval_timeout expiration. This gives the agent a realistic picture of side effects, though it could say more about what happens when dry_run is false.

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 concise and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by the essential behavioral and timing details. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary bloat, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool has siblings, the description covers the main workflow steps, dry-run safety, and timeout semantics. The main gap is not clearly explaining the exact behavior and requirements for non-dry-run releases, especially around tagging and publishing.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explicitly explains dry_run and approval_timeout meaning and the default behavior, but repo_path and version receive no specific explanation beyond the overall wording 'for a repository' and the word 'version'. This leaves room for confusion about exact argument formats or expectations.

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 opens with 'Start a release run for a repository' and then outlines the key stages: run the gates, draft release notes, and ask the policy about human approval. It is specific and clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_gates and approve_gate, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 implies this is the entry point for a release and that a human approval gate may be needed afterwards, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of related ones such as retry_run, cancel_run, or approve_gate. The intended workflow context is inferable, but not stated directly.

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