apple_submit_for_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it flags the call as an external action that is 'hard to reverse' and mandates user confirmation. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior, but the irreversibility and prerequisite disclosures are the most valuable behavioral facts here.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded with the action first and the caveat and prerequisites immediately after. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 no explanation, and the description covers prerequisites and the confirmation gate for a high-stakes mutation. For an annotation-free irreversible action, slightly more on permissions or post-call state would be ideal, but it is largely complete.

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 single parameter (version_id) is undocumented, so the description must compensate. It implies that the identifier refers to a version with an attached build, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for obtaining a valid version_id.

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 and resource ('Submit a version for Apple review'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling apple_resubmit_for_review or play_submit_for_review, so the agent must infer the distinction, but the core purpose is clear.

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 actionable preconditions ('version to already have a build attached and complete metadata') and a confirmation requirement before calling. It stops short of naming alternatives such as apple_resubmit_for_review or stating when resubmission is preferred over a first submission.

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