play_submit_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it identifies this as an external action, clarifies that it does not publish on a new app, and discloses that approval may auto-publish on an already-published app with managed publishing off. It also states the required release-confirmation prerequisite.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action, then adds the critical publish-behavior caveat and prerequisites in compact paragraphs. Every sentence adds useful operational context without redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter external mutation with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers the important side effects, prerequisites, and alternative status check. Return-value details are unnecessary because an output schema exists.

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?

There is one required parameter, package_name, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention package_name or explain its expected format or source, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: sending pending app changes to Google for review. It also distinguishes this from publishing on a new app and from the separate Publish step, so the agent can tell it apart from related sibling tools like play_promote_release.

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 explicit preconditions (the release must be confirmed first), an alternative checking tool (play_submission_status), and a when-not warning for already-published apps with managed publishing off. The agent has clear guidance on when to use it and when to confirm before use.

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