review_submissions__create

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) with unknown idempotency and destructiveness. The description adds the prerequisite about builds, but does not elaborate on side effects or review process behavior. It meets a baseline but could add more about state changes or validation.

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?

Two sentences, both essential. The first states action and prerequisite; the second adds an endpoint hint. No waste, front-loaded with key information.

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?

Given the complexity of the input schema (nested objects for app and type) and no output schema, the description lacks details on response format or error conditions. It covers the core action and a prerequisite but leaves out completeness for an agent to use reliably without additional schema exploration.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters. The description provides a high-level reference to 'JSON:API request body (Apple schema: ReviewSubmissionCreateRequest)' but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers. Acceptable but not enhancing.

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 clearly states the action ('Submit an App Store version for Apple review') and a key prerequisite ('must already have a build attached'). It distinguishes this creation tool from sibling tools like review_submissions__list or review_submissions__get.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (build attached) and implies usage context for when to submit a version for review. It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an AI agent familiar with the domain.

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