create_version

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful qualifier by framing the mutation as affecting 'app draft state', which tells the agent the change is to pre-release data, but it says nothing about duplicate-version errors, permission needs, or the releaseType default.

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 resource second; every clause carries information. The all-caps 'MUTATES' is defensible emphasis but borders on redundant given the destructiveHint annotation.

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 four-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it never addresses the two enum parameters, the required versionString, or what the agent receives on success. It answers 'what' but leaves too much of 'how' and 'with what effect' unstated.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and does not. It mentions the app and platform inputs only obliquely and never explains versionString format or what releaseType (MANUAL vs AFTER_APPROVAL) actually changes about publication behavior.

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 states a specific verb plus resource ('create a new App Store version') and scopes it to an app and platform, which clearly separates it from read siblings like list_versions and get_version. It stops short of naming the nearest alternative among the many create_* siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a version versus using assign_build_to_version, submit_review, or release_version, nor any stated prerequisites such as the app already existing or a version string format. The agent gets no when-not-to-use conditions and no ordering context in the release workflow.

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