in_app_purchase_submissions_create_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about the mutation: no required permissions, no side effects, no reversibility, no rate limits, no response behavior. A POST create tool with zero annotation coverage and zero behavioral context scores at the floor.

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?

It is short, but the endpoint is duplicated verbatim in parentheses ('POST /v1/inAppPurchaseSubmissions (POST /v1/inAppPurchaseSubmissions)'), which is pure waste. The single useful sentence, pointing to the request schema, is not front-loaded as a purpose statement.

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 mutation tool with a nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It explains neither the create semantics, the envelope expectations, nor the resulting behavior, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it correctly.

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 100% and there is only one parameter (body), so the schema already documents the shape. The description merely points at the same OpenAPI component the schema references, adding no syntax or field-level meaning beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 applies.

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 only restates the HTTP endpoint ('POST /v1/inAppPurchaseSubmissions') which mirrors the tool name rather than explaining what an in-app purchase submission is or does. There is no plain-language verb+resource framing, and nothing distinguishes it from sibling create tools like in_app_purchase_versions_create_instance.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives such as in_app_purchase_versions_create_instance or subscription_submissions_create_instance. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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