asc_create_bundle_id

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden well: it flags 'LIVE write', states 'Human approval' (explaining the approval gate), and explains the capability preconditions and the effect of apply_capabilities/app_dir. It still omits failure/reversibility behavior and the relationship of approval_id to the approval flow.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the dense parenthetical enumerates capabilities efficiently. The second paragraph is information-rich but slightly crammed, preventing a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given no annotations and a mutation tool with a human-approval gate, the description supplies the essential safety and ordering context, though it does not cover error or reversal behavior.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains app_dir (checks capabilities right away), apply_capabilities (also applies them), and the capability enum values, but identifier, name, and approval_id receive no explicit mapping in the text. Partial compensation only.

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 ('Register a bundle id in App Store Connect') and marks it as a LIVE write, which distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like asc_list_apps and asc_get_app. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Gives clear sequencing context: the App ID capabilities must exist BEFORE any key, profile or signing step, and explains the app_dir vs apply_capabilities behavior. It does not name a competing sibling tool or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, keeping it below a 5.

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