release__submit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool performs multiple internal steps, checks submittability first, and refuses to submit versions that would bounce. The skip_preflight parameter description adds further behavioral context.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by meaningful caveats and alternative routing. No wasted words or redundant schema repetition.

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?

The description is complete for an action tool of this complexity: it explains the workflow, the safety check, the refusal behavior, and the alternative. The presence of a full output schema means return values do not need to be described in prose.

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?

The schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage. The description adds value by explaining the orchestration behavior and warning about skip_preflight, but the parameter-specific extra is modest beyond the schema.

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 clear, specific action: send an App Store version to Apple for review in one call. It also distinguishes this tool from review_submissions__create, making the scope and purpose easy to identify.

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 description explicitly says to use this tool instead of review_submissions__create, and explains why: that sibling 'by itself sends nothing.' It also notes the pre-flight behavior, reinforcing when this tool is the right choice.

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