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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the submission is empty and enters READY_FOR_REVIEW, but it does not cover permissions/auth requirements, duplicate-submission behavior, side effects, or what happens to the notification_message during failure.

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 the core purpose and immediately followed by the key alternative. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 low-complexity, one-optional-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete for selection and invocation. It could still say how the target app is identified or what a successful creation returns, which matters for a mutation tool with no output schema.

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 single optional notification_message parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond context about the empty submission state, so the baseline score 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: create a new, empty review submission. It adds the important state (READY_FOR_REVIEW) and purpose (so a version/build can be attached before submit), making it distinguishable from the submit-oriented 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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool versus press_submit_for_review: create empty first when attaching a build is needed, or submit current version in one step. The alternative and selection condition are both named directly.

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