apple_resubmit_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it flags 'External action', states that rejected items are marked resolved, and warns that a Resolution Center reply alone will not clear the Rejected state. It omits permission/auth requirements and any confirmation or failure behavior.

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-loads the action and scope in the first sentence, then uses the second paragraph to disambiguate. The UI-analogy sentence ('Same as Update Review on the version page...') is slightly redundant but earns its place by clarifying behavior.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, and the description supplies the mutation semantics, prerequisite tool, and the common failure mode. Remaining gaps (auth requirements, what happens if the version was not actually rejected) are modest for a single-parameter action.

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?

Only one parameter (app_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning to it. The parameter is self-evident from its name, so the gap is minor, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 (resubmit) and resource (a rejected version) plus the scope condition ('after replying to App Review or fixing it'). The 'Same as Update Review + Resubmit' analogy pins the exact operation, and 'submits the same review submission again' separates it from apple_submit_for_review's fresh submission.

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 when (after replying or fixing a rejection) and a when-not ('Replying in the Resolution Center alone keeps the version Rejected'). It also names the prerequisite/alternative tool (apple_attach_build) for the case where the fix required a new build.

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