trigger_resubmission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly labels the tool as 'Destructive' and explains the preview-vs-execute behavior, which is essential for safe use. It could mention side effects beyond execution, but the confirm requirement is well-disclosed.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second covers safety and prerequisites. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, the description explains the preview behavior without confirm and the need for a specific credential. It could describe what the preview contains or post-execution results, but given the tool's simplicity, this level is adequate and not missing critical information.

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% (both parameters described), so baseline is 3. The description adds clarity around the confirm parameter's dual role (preview vs execute) and the auth requirement, going beyond schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Resubmits' and the resource 'a rejected app for review', distinguishing it from sibling tools like publish_app or preview_app. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains the critical usage pattern (call with confirm:true to execute, otherwise preview) and states a prerequisite (customer-owned Apple credential). It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the context of 'rejected app' makes the intended use clear.

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