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 reveals that the tool mutates state (attaches a build and submits for review) but says nothing about irreversibility, required ASC credentials/permissions, what happens if the submit step fails, or how notification_message is used 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the precondition first and the two-step action second, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terse phrasing borders on cryptic.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 14% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the encryption declaration, the notification message, or the failure behavior an agent needs to call this safely.

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 14% across 7 parameters. The description clarifies build_id, build_number, and the 'latest' selection, and implies app_store_version_id via 'current version', but leaves asc_app_id, notification_message, and uses_non_exempt_encryption entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names a specific composite action: attach a build (latest/build number/build_id) to the current version, then press Submit for Review in ASC. That is a clear verb+resource statement that distinguishes it from siblings like attach_build_and_compliance or press_submit_for_review, though it does not explicitly say how it differs from those.

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?

"Upload done:" implies the precondition (a build has been uploaded) and thus when to call it, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternatives such as press_submit_for_review or submit_for_review. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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