apple_create_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a real behavioral trait – the precondition failure when an editable version exists – which is valuable and not visible in the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions/auth requirements or what the created version's side effects are.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the failure condition and fallback. No redundant or filler text.

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 behavioral/usage story is complete. The gap is input-side: three parameters, including an enumerated-by-convention platform default, are undocumented in both schema and description.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Existing app' only loosely implies app_id, and neither version_string nor the platform parameter (IOS default) nor its accepted values are explained anywhere.

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 (create) and resource (an App Store version for an existing app), making clear it operates on an already-registered app rather than creating one. This cleanly separates it from siblings like apple_create_app_form and apple_set_version_string.

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 names the when-not condition ('fails if an editable version already exists') and routes the agent to the alternative (apple_list_versions) to reuse the existing version. This is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs before calling.

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