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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it performs a PATCH mutation to submitted=true, but says nothing about irreversibility, what Apple-side consequences follow, required permissions, or error behavior if the follow-up reply fails — all material for an irreversible submit action.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the precondition leads. But the telegraphic phrasing ('Build already on version: ... PATCH submitted=true') is closer to internal shorthand than a front-loaded explanation an agent can parse cleanly.

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, four parameters at 25% coverage, and a dense set of near-duplicate siblings, the description does far too little. It never establishes the boundary between this tool and submit_for_review / submit_build_for_review, which is the agent's main decision.

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 only 25%; only notification_message is documented. The description adds the confirm gate meaning but never explains asc_app_id versus app_store_version_id, nor how notification_message relates to the failure path. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 verb+resource is present ('create review submission and PATCH submitted=true'), so the mechanical action is discernible. However, in a sibling cluster containing submit_for_review, submit_build_for_review, and submit_build_and_press_submit, the description gives no basis for telling press_submit_for_review apart from those tools; only the cryptic 'Build already on version' prefix hints at a lower-level step.

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?

'Build already on version' states a precondition, and 'Requires confirm_submit_for_review=true' flags a guard. But there is no guidance on when to pick this versus the several sibling submit tools, and no statement of when not to use it.

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