upload_bundleUpload a local Android App Bundle (.aab) to an existing Google Play app edit and return its versionCode; it does not assign a track or publish the edit.
MUTATES an app edit: reads a local .aab file and uploads its bytes. Returns the bundle versionCode. Does not assign a track or publish the edit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| editId | Yes | ||
| filePath | Yes | ||
| packageName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 real value beyond them by disclosing the post-conditions (no track assignment, no publishing) and the return value (bundle versionCode). It does not explain what makes the call destructive or what permissions/size limits apply, which keeps it below 5.
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?
Three short sentences, mutation warning front-loaded, then mechanics, then scope limits. Every clause carries information an agent needs and there is no 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?
It covers the essential workflow position and the return value in the absence of an output schema, which is the most important gap filled. However, for a destructive, non-idempotent upload it omits prerequisites (an open edit), file constraints, and what state is affected on failure — gaps an agent would want before invoking it.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does not: none of packageName, editId, or filePath are named. "Reads a local .aab file" only indirectly conveys that filePath is a local path, and packageName is never addressed at all.
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 ("reads a local .aab file and uploads its bytes" into an app edit) and explicitly scopes it apart from publishing or track assignment. An agent can distinguish it from upload_internal_sharing_bundle, update_track, and commit_edit without opening any 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?
"Does not assign a track or publish the edit" tells the agent this is a mid-workflow step and that update_track/commit_edit must follow, giving clear usage context. It stops short of naming those sibling tools or stating preconditions (e.g. that the edit must be open), so it is strong but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.