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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose what is skipped (export-compliance and wait-for-processing steps), which tells the agent about side effects and preconditions, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, required state of the build, or what happens on 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the routing rule second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover the full contract, and it covers only the happy path and one alternative. It leaves unaddressed which identifiers are mandatory and what the caller gets back, which matters for a mutation tool with all-optional params.

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 coverage is only 33% — only notification_message is documented — yet the description never mentions build_id or app_store_version_id, nor does it explain why all three params are optional for an operation that clearly needs identifiers. It adds no meaning beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 ('Set which build is attached to an app store version') and immediately scopes it by naming what it does not do (export-compliance, wait-for-processing). An agent can distinguish it from attach_build_and_compliance and wait_build_processed without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (attach_build_and_compliance) plus the exact condition that selects it ('when the build may still be processing'). This is a genuine when-to-use/when-not guidance pair rather than implied usage.

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