提交应用发布审核

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable context: '这是对外生效的操作，调用前请与用户确认' (this is an externally effective operation, confirm with user before calling). It also mentions preconditions about app info and package parsing. This goes beyond the annotations by adding the user-confirmation requirement and readiness checks, which is useful for an agent.

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 concise, with the main action front-loaded. It includes preconditions, a warning about external effect, and platform-specific endpoint details in a few sentences. No wasted words. It's well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested 'phased' object, platform-specific behavior, and external effects), the description covers the key context: preconditions, user confirmation, and platform routing. The schema handles parameter details like releaseTime and phased settings. There's no output schema, but the description doesn't need to explain return values. It's fairly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, except for noting the platform-specific endpoints which relate to the 'platform' parameter. Since the schema covers the parameters well, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description adds marginal value.

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: '提交应用审核发布（上架）' (submit app review release/listing). It specifies the resource (app) and the operation (submit for review). It also distinguishes between HarmonyOS and Android endpoints, which helps differentiate from sibling tools like agc_update_app_package or agc_list_reviews. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 clear preconditions: '调用前应确认应用信息完整、软件包已解析成功' (confirm app info is complete and package parsed successfully before calling). It also warns that this is an externally effective operation and requires user confirmation. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context makes it clear this is the submission action, and the platform-specific endpoints guide usage. This is adequate guidance.

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