Submit Build for External TestFlight Review

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this operation modifies state. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., effects of resubmission, review process implications), but it is not contradictory.

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous content. It efficiently conveys the core action and context.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema) and the annotations covering destructive behavior, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose. However, it could briefly mention prerequisites like having a build already uploaded.

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%, placing the burden on the description to explain the parameter. The description only mentions 'a build' generically and does not clarify that the required parameter buildId is the build identifier. This fails to 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Submit a build to Beta App Review') and specifies the context ('before external TestFlight distribution'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like asc_submit_app_store_version, which targets App Store review.

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?

The description implies usage when a build needs to be submitted for external TestFlight review, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to avoid using this tool or suggest alternatives. The context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria or references to related steps.

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