apple_upload_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that build processing is asynchronous ('takes a few minutes') and how to track it. However it says nothing about required credentials/auth for xcrun altool, overwrite/replace behavior, or failure modes, which are material for an upload mutation.

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 tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the async caveat plus platform values appended. Nothing is wasted.

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 description covers the key async behavior and the tracking tool. The main gap is the absence of any authentication or prerequisite context for an upload operation, which is a moderate omission rather than a fatal one.

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% and no enums are declared, so the description must compensate. It does enumerate valid platform values (ios, osx, appletvos), which is genuinely additive over the schema's bare string. It adds nothing about ipa_path format, but the required parameter is self-describing from its name.

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 ('Upload an .ipa to App Store Connect') plus the mechanism ('via xcrun altool'), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling upload tools such as play_upload_bundle, but the App Store target makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied (upload after building an iOS/tvOS/macOS artifact) and it points to apple_list_builds as the follow-up tool for tracking processing. There is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance or prerequisite statement, so it stays at minimum-viable.

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