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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real context: the upload runs through Transporter on the replay host and the .ipa is downloaded from an https URL first. However, it says nothing about required ASC authentication/login state, failure behavior, whether the upload is irreversible or how long it takes, or what a caller should do afterward (e.g., wait_build_processed).

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?

Three tight sentences with no filler: the action comes first, the routing exclusion second, the input contract last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description is the only behavioral source, and it omits post-upload sequencing (the build still needs processing/attachment via siblings) and prerequisite session/auth state. The purpose and input contract are complete, but the surrounding workflow is left implicit.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds something the schema does not state: that ipa_url and ipa_path are alternatives ("Supply ipa_url (https) or the host-local ipa_path"). That either/or relationship is genuinely additive for an all-optional parameter set where the choice matters.

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 ("Upload a .ipa to App Store Connect") plus the exact mechanism (Transporter on the replay host), which is far more than the name alone conveys. It also implicitly separates itself from sibling flows like distribute_build_to_testflight or submit_build_for_review by scoping the action to the upload step only.

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 condition to NOT use it — CI/Expo-built apps should upload through Expo or the CI pipeline directly and skip this tool — and states the positive condition it exists for (builds that must be uploaded from the replay host itself). This is the when/when-not pattern done properly.

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