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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the interesting behavior: submission lands in a 'review queue' rather than being published directly, and a public proof link is mandatory. It stops short of describing auth needs, duplicate handling, or what the submitter gets back, but it meaningfully extends the annotation surface.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, the hard requirement in the second. No filler and no restatement of the tool title.

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 6-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the source-link requirement but says nothing about what happens after submission (queued, approval, rejection) or about half the input fields. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 33%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does by elaborating source_url as a public post, launch, or interview and restating it as required. However, title, url, tools, one_liner and builder_name get no semantic help from either source, leaving required 'url' and 'title' thin.

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 (submit) plus resource (an AI-built app) and destination (Vibe Shipped review queue), which instantly separates it from the read-only siblings get_app, latest_apps, list_tools and search_apps. An agent can tell this is the only write path in the toolset without opening a 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?

Gives clear triggering context (submitting an AI-built app) and a precondition (a public source link is required), but offers no explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives. Adequate routing information without exclusions.

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