apple_create_app_form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that Apple exposes no POST /v1/apps, that the tool operates by driving an already logged-in Chrome session, and that the actual creation is manual/assisted. It does not cover failure modes (e.g., no active browser session), keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by the rationale and prerequisite. Three short sentences with little waste, though the parenthetical API detail is slightly redundant for selection purposes.

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 an output schema exists, explaining return values is unnecessary, and the description still notes that the tool returns the values needed for the form. Combined with the prerequisite, an agent has enough to invoke correctly; only the suggested_name semantics are missing.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It implicitly ties bundle_id to the registered Bundle ID, but suggested_name is never explained (usage, format, or relationship to the form), leaving an agent without guidance on a required parameter.

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?

Specific verb (open) + resource (the new-app form) + channel (browser). The description also contrasts with the API path, so an agent can distinguish this assisted step from API-backed siblings like apple_register_bundle_id.

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 directs the agent to call apple_register_bundle_id first, giving a prerequisite and ordering. It does not enumerate when NOT to use it or name an alternative creation path, but the context is clear and actionable.

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