apple_cancel_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses this is an 'external action' and that the version transitions to DEVELOPER_REJECTED and can be resubmitted. It omits auth/permission requirements and any rate-limit or irreversibility caveats, but the resulting state change is well described.

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, action front-loaded, with the resulting state and follow-up tool packed efficiently. The timing idea is repeated ('before Apple decides' and 'without waiting for the review'), a minor redundancy, but nothing is padded.

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. Purpose, usage trigger, resulting state, and the follow-up tool are all covered; the missing parameter semantics and auth context are the main residual gaps.

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% and the sole required parameter app_id is never referenced or explained. The description only alludes to 'a version submitted for review' conceptually, adding no format or identity detail (e.g., whether app_id is a numeric App Store ID or a bundle identifier), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource: pulling a version submitted for review out of Apple's queue. It also clarifies the timing constraint ('before Apple decides') and distinguishes the action from the related submission flow, so an agent can tell it apart from apple_submit_for_review/apple_resubmit_for_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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use scenario ('swap the build without waiting for the review') and routes to the follow-up tool apple_submit_for_review. It does not state explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites, but the usage context is clear.

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