submit_build_for_beta_review

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

With only destructiveHint=true given, the description carries the behavioral load and does so well: it discloses that this submits to Apple (an external, irreversible action), that user confirmation is mandatory, and describes the two-phase preview/confirmToken fallback including MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Opens with the core action and scope before detailing the confirmation mechanics, which is well front-loaded. The parenthetical about MCP_CONFIRM_MODE is dense, but every clause is functional rather than filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and only one annotation, the description covers the action, the required confirmation protocol, and the fallback response shape (preview + confirmToken). It is nearly complete; only the actual return payload after submission is unspecified, which is minor.

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 already 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining that confirmToken belongs only to the two-step fallback phase and is ignored when elicitation is supported — context the schema states but the description reinforces coherently within the tool's overall flow.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (submit a build for TestFlight beta app review) and adds the scope qualifier 'required before external testing', which distinguishes it from list_builds/get_build siblings. An agent knows exactly what this does without consulting the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: it is required before external testing and must be confirmed by the user, with the specific flow for clients that do and do not support elicitation. It does not name an alternative tool or state when NOT to submit, so it falls short of the top bar.

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