upload_internal_app_sharing_bundleUpload an Android App Bundle (.aab) to internal app sharing, making it available for testers.
Upload an app bundle (.aab) to internal app sharing.
Disabled in read-only mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bundle_path | Yes | Local path to the app bundle (.aab) file | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the upload's effect and the read-only restriction, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, overwrite behavior, permissions, or what happens after upload, leaving some behavioral context implicit.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only restriction is a useful, compact addition.
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 simple two-parameter upload tool with a complete schema and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate. It is missing explicit context for choosing internal app sharing over siblings and some behavioral details, but the core call is sufficiently specified.
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?
The input schema fully describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description is not required to add parameter details. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.
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 identifies the action (upload), the resource type (.aab bundle), and the target (internal app sharing). It differentiates from the sibling upload_internal_app_sharing_apk by format, though it does not explicitly contrast with regular upload_bundle.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose internal app sharing over the regular bundle upload or the APK equivalent. The only usage signal, 'Disabled in read-only mode,' is operational but does not help an agent decide between this tool and its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.