Submit app version for App Store review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It is candid about the important side effect: the version is moved into Apple's review queue, signaling that this is a consequential external submission, not a local draft. It does not discuss reversibility or state prerequisites, but the core behavior is explicitly 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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler; the action is stated first and the objective outcome is front-loaded. The title and description together provide all necessary information without redundancy.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential intent and outcome. It lacks usage caveats and state prerequisites, but the schema fully documents the required inputs, and the behavior is clear enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in the obvious case.

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%, and both parameters include clear descriptions ('App Store Connect app ID' and 'appStoreVersions resource ID to submit'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb and object ('Create an App Store review submission for an app store version') and clarifies the real-world consequence ('moving it into Apple's review queue'). This clearly identifies the mutation operation and distinguishes it from the sibling read/list tools such as list_app_store_versions and get_app_store_version.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., the version must be complete or have valid metadata), and no warnings about when not to call it. An agent must infer usage solely from the name and title.

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