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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what the tool does and when to use it; it does not mention permissions, side effects, idempotency, error handling, or what happens if the attachment fails. The single sequencing hint is not enough for a mutation 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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by usage guidance. It is efficient, though the phantom parameter mention is a structural flaw that wastes some clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a schema that contains only one unrelated optional parameter, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain how to specify which item to attach or which submission to target, leaving the tool effectively unusable as described.

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 description references 'review_submission_id', but that parameter does not exist in the schema—only 'notification_message' is present. The description adds no meaning to the actual parameter and introduces a misleading identifier that could cause an agent to pass an unsupported argument.

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 (attach) and resource (app store version or build item) to an existing review submission. It names the key identifier (review_submission_id) and names a sibling (create_review_submission). However, the schema does not contain review_submission_id, which creates confusion about what exactly is being operated on.

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?

It explicitly says to use this after create_review_submission when building a submission manually, giving a clear context for use. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the conditional guidance is strong.

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