set_build_for_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions prerequisites but does not state whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. Critical safety and side-effect information is missing.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the action and both preconditions. It is concise with no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for clarity.

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 tool with 2 required parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides the core action and preconditions. However, it omits information about return values, possible errors, or side effects, which would be helpful for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 100% with both parameters having descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the basic parameter descriptions (e.g., format, constraints, or dependencies). It relies entirely on 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 states the action (associate a build with an App Store version) and includes preconditions (build processed, version in PREPARE_FOR_SUBMISSION). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like add_build_to_beta_group, though the context (App Store version vs beta group) provides implicit differentiation.

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 includes important preconditions for use (build processed, version in PREPARE_FOR_SUBMISSION state), which give context on when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other scenarios.

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