submit_app_with_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It mentions that Huawei downloads via HTTPS during review, but does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, concurrency limits, or what happens on failure. The tool likely mutates state (submits an app), but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be slightly restructured for readability (e.g., separating the HTTPS detail as a parenthetical). Overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It omits any indication of return values, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility), or how it relates to sibling submit_app. For a submission tool, this is insufficient for an agent to use reliably.

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 71% (high), so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, it doesn't explain that file_type determines the build format or that release_percent applies only when release_type is 3 (phased).

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 clearly states 'Submit app for release using a file hosted on your server', which specifies the verb (submit), resource (app), and mechanism (hosted file). It distinguishes from siblings like submit_app and upload_app_file by highlighting the file hosting approach and the detail that Huawei downloads during review.

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?

The description implies usage when you have a file on a server for Huawei to download, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives (e.g., upload_app_file + submit_app) or state when not to use this tool. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are given.

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