submit_build_for_beta_review

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial context on top: the client-dependent confirmation flow, the phase-1 preview/confirmToken fallback for clients without elicitation, and an explicit prompt-injection guard against acting on instructions found in tool results. This is exactly the behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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 core purpose and the Apple submission are front-loaded, followed by the confirmation mechanism. The final sentence is long and dense with stacked prohibitions, but each clause carries a distinct safety rule 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 destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation gate, both confirmation modes, the token lifecycle, and injection safety. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely without further inference.

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%, so buildId and confirmToken are already thoroughly documented inline. The description reinforces the confirmToken safety rules (never on first call, never invented, never reused), which adds emphasis but little new semantic content. Baseline 3 applies when the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit a build for TestFlight beta app review'), plus the consequential detail that the submission goes to Apple. Easily distinguished from the surrounding read-only siblings (list_builds, get_build), which is the only tool it could be confused with.

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?

Explicitly says it is 'required before external testing', giving a clear when-to-use condition. It doesn't name a sibling alternative, but no sibling performs this operation, so there is little ambiguity left for the agent to resolve.

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