apple_set_version_string

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is an 'External action' and explains the App Store state-machine constraint (Apple refuses to create a new version while a slot is occupied), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether the rename is reversible, or the effect on the version's current state beyond the listing.

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?

The core operation is front-loaded, immediately followed by the behavioral tag 'External action' and then the rationale. The use-case sentence is somewhat long but each part earns its place by explaining the constraint.

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 described, and the why/when is covered. But for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description omits prerequisites (obtaining version_id, permission needs) that an agent would want.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must document both parameters. It partially clarifies version_string by implying it should be the new build's version number, but version_id is never explained (e.g. where to obtain it, presumably from apple_list_versions). Half the parameters remain undocumented.

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?

The opening 'Rename an editable version' states a specific verb (rename) and resource (version), and the constraint about the slot being occupied distinguishes it from apple_create_version. It is clear, though it never names the sibling tools it must be distinguished from.

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?

It gives a concrete when-to-use scenario: reusing a REJECTED version that blocks creation of a new one. This tells the agent the triggering condition well, but it does not explicitly route away from alternatives such as apple_create_version in the normal case.

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