Delimit Release Validate

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

Beyond the annotations, the description clearly discloses the conditional side-effect behavior: no side effects on success, but on failure it auto-chains three specific actions (evidence collection, notification, ledger item). This is significant behavioral context the agent needs before invoking the tool.

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 well-structured with labeled sections: purpose, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every section adds distinct value, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, sibling differentiation, and side effects, which are the critical elements for correct invocation. Nothing essential is missing.

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 parameters version and environment are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable but not above the baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Validate that a release is safe to ship.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from delimit_release_plan, delimit_lint, and delimit_obs_status, making the tool's role clear relative to siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use ('gate between delimit_release_plan and the actual rollout'), when-not-to-use (OpenAPI linting, runtime health), and a sibling contrast with delimit_release_plan. This leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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