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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it implies a mutation and a two-stage attach-then-submit flow, which is useful, but it never states permissions/API-key requirements, whether an existing attached build is replaced, or whether the submit step is reversible. The implicit 'attach' side effect on the store version is left for the agent to infer.

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 names the action first and the optional branch second, with no padding. The parenthetical and semicolon chaining make it slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 9-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, this is under-explained: the agent does not know success/failure shape, permission needs, or how attach-only versus submit mode interact. The description covers the happy path but not enough to call the tool 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?

With only 44% schema coverage across 9 parameters, the description does add real value by naming build_selection 'latest', build_number (ASC build version), build_id, and confirm_submit_for_review. It leaves asc_app_id, app_store_version_id, attach_only, uses_non_exempt_encryption and notification_message unexplained, and the interaction/conflict between attach_only and confirm_submit_for_review is not resolved.

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 does state a concrete action (attach a build to the current store version, with an optional submit) and names the build-selection options, so the intent is graspable. However, the tool name promises 'submit_build_for_review' while the primary action is attaching, and the description gives no hint why this differs from siblings like set_version_build, submit_build_and_press_submit, or create_review_submission.

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 explains the internal conditional (submit only when confirm_submit_for_review=true) but never says when an agent should pick this tool over the many neighbouring attach/submit tools. There is no alternative, no prerequisite, and no exclusion stated.

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