apple_attach_build

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 usefully discloses the VALID-state precondition, but says nothing about whether attaching replaces an existing build, whether the operation is idempotent/reversible, or what permissions are required for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, action stated first and the precondition second. No padding, every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the prerequisite plus cross-reference are helpful. However, for a two-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves parameters and mutation side effects under-specified.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning, yet neither build_id nor version_id is explained. It only indirectly implies that build_id refers to a processed/VALID build and version_id to an App Store version, leaving format and sourcing unstated.

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 ('Attach') and resource ('a processed build to an App Store version'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like apple_upload_build and apple_list_builds. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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 an explicit precondition (the build must have processingState VALID) and routes to the sibling that reveals that state (apple_list_builds). It stops short of stating when not to use it or what happens if a build is already attached.

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