submit_for_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the required state but does not describe side effects (e.g., state changes, triggering review) or error conditions. This is minimal beyond the precondition.

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 is direct and to the point, with no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the action and precondition.

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 single-parameter submission tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the core action and key precondition. However, it lacks details on response, error handling, or outcome, leaving gaps for an AI 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 description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'version_id', with its description in the schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 'Submit an App Store version for App Store review', identifying the specific action and resource. It also includes a state condition ('must be in PREPARE_FOR_SUBMISSION state') which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_review' or 'respond_to_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 provides a clear precondition ('version must be in PREPARE_FOR_SUBMISSION state'), implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives for state management, though sibling tools like 'get_app_store_state' and 'update_app_version' are available.

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