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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: it performs a bundle-ID visibility check and will block while release builds are in flight. This is real context an agent could not infer from the structured fields. No contradiction with the mutation-shaped annotations.

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 tight clauses with the action front-loaded, then the motivating example, then the precondition. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers the mutation's side effects and precondition. It is essentially complete for a two-parameter link operation, with only the absence of an explicit alternative to connect_status as a minor gap.

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 both parameters (project_id, connection_id) are already fully documented, including where to obtain them. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Link a project to an Apple connection." The mutation is unambiguous and distinct from the read-only connect_status sibling, though the description never names an alternative explicitly. A clear, self-contained statement of purpose.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ("after the human rotates their App Store Connect key") and a precondition ("Release builds already running must finish first"). It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or which sibling to prefer as an alternative, so it falls just below the top band.

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