Submit for review

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful context by detailing the exact sequence of operations (create, add, mark submitted), which goes beyond the structured annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 front-loaded with the action and immediately explains the three-step process. Every phrase earns its place, with no fluff or 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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and all annotations false, the description covers the essential behavior (submitting a version) and its immediate effects. It does not elaborate on edge cases, prerequisites, or expected response, but for a straightforward submission action, the description is sufficient.

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 already has 100% parameter description coverage, and the description does not add meaningful semantic information beyond what is already in the schema. The description's mention of 'adds the version as an item' aligns with appStoreVersionId, but the schema itself already documents all required/optional parameters adequately.

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 explicitly states the action ('Submit an App Store version for review') and outlines the steps involved ('Creates a review submission, adds the version as an item, and marks it as submitted'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that list, get, or update review submissions.

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 implies the usage context (when you want to submit a version for review) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The unique verb 'submit' among siblings provides some implicit differentiation, but no direct comparisons are made.

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