add_version_to_submission

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the risky/mutating profile is structured data; the description's 'MUTATES ... draft state' is consistent reinforcement rather than new information. It does not disclose what happens on a non-draft submission, whether the operation is reversible, or what errors/preconditions apply, which is the extra context that would raise this score.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the mutation warning first and the action second; there is no filler 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?

For a two-parameter, non-idempotent, destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what it does but omits prerequisites (submission must be draft), failure behavior, and post-call state. Adequate to attempt the call, insufficient to call it confidently.

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?

Both required parameters (submissionId, versionId) have 0% schema description coverage, so the schema carries no meaning beyond type and length constraints. The description merely restates the concept of 'a version' and 'a submission' without stating ID formats, where to obtain them, or whether versionId must belong to the same app as the submission.

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 names a specific verb and resource combination (add an App Store version to a review submission) and opens with a mutation marker, so the effect is unambiguous. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like create_review_submission and assign_build_to_version, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 phrase 'App Review draft state' implies the submission must already exist and be in draft, which is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule and no routing away from submit_review, create_review_submission, or assign_build_to_version.

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