delete_release

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the deletion is soft, restoration is possible through the UI, and linked Test Collections and launches are preserved. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know and is not captured in the structured annotation fields.

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?

Three short sentences deliver all essential information with no redundancy or filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and subsequent sentences provide valuable non-obvious details.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete. It states the action, the restoration path, and the preservation of related resources, giving an agent enough to invoke it correctly without missing important consequences.

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 input schema already documents releaseId as 'Release UUID to archive' with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond the schema, but it is consistent with the parameter's meaning. Given full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Soft delete (archive) a release.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools by naming the target resource and clarifying the action is a soft delete/archive rather than a permanent purge.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: when you need to archive a release. It also indirectly sets expectations by noting restoration is done via the UI, implying this is not a permanent delete. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the resource-specific purpose makes the usage context sufficiently clear.

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