asc_finalize_submission_requirements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important fallback behavior: copyright read from config, contact_email falling back to support_email, and a generic 7-item review_notes template. However, it does not state auth requirements, whether existing values are overwritten, idempotency, or other side effects of this mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then exclusions, then omitted-parameter rules. Dense but efficient with no filler, though a few parentheticals are terse. Appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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. The description covers purpose, timing, exclusions, and key defaults, but with 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, missing parameter and mutation-safety details leave it short of fully self-contained.

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 description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It groups and names most fields and gives specific fallback rules for copyright, contact_email, and review_notes, but approval_id and the required bundle_id are not explained. Compensation is partial.

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 ('Fill') and enumerates the exact submit-blocking fields (Content Rights, Copyright, Age Rating, Free Price, App Review Contact, App Review Notes). Distinguishes itself from generic submit tools by scope ('before submit, per app') and by explicitly excluding App Privacy.

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?

States when to call it (before submit, per app), what is excluded (App Privacy, must be set via ASC web UI), and dependent fallback configuration (config_set for the copyright key). It names both the alternative path for an excluded field and the source of defaults for omitted parameters.

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