review_submissions__update

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

Annotations already indicate write, idempotent, and destructive behavior, so the description adds context by explaining what 'submitted' and 'canceled' do and that this is a RELEASE-level write. It also clarifies the workflow distinction about starting the queue. It doesn't detail irreversible consequences or response details, but it meaningfully supplements the annotations.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes the endpoint and risk level. Every sentence adds meaningful information with 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?

For a state-transition update with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and the queue-starting behavior. It could mention response behavior or edge cases, but the annotations and schema fill most remaining gaps, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping the boolean attributes to concrete actions ('setting submitted to true' vs 'canceled'), which the schema does not explain. The id parameter is already documented as 'ID from the matching list call,' so the description enhances understanding 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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Hand an open submission to Apple' and clearly explains the two primary actions (set submitted=true or canceled=true). It distinguishes itself from related operations by noting 'opening the submission and filling it does not' start the queue, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear usage context: it is the step that starts the queue, implying it should be used after opening/filling a submission. It also offers the alternative of canceling via 'canceled'. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when to prefer them, so the guidance 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.