ASC Finalize Submission Requirements

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

Adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses that this is a 'live write, needs human approval', describes the approval_required refusal path, and states fallback behavior for missing copyright and contact_email. However, annotations flag destructiveHint=true and the description never explains what existing listing values this overwrite or what 'destructive' means here, leaving one meaningful gap.

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-loads the core purpose, then uses tight 'Use when:' and 'Returns:' labeled clauses. Zero filler and every sentence carries operational 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?

An output schema exists, so the brief Returns summary is sufficient, and the description covers the approval refusal mode and the App Privacy caveat. It is largely complete, with only the unexplained destructive semantics of the write left out.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the copyright/support_email fallbacks that the description repeats. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Fill the submit-blocking app-level fields in one call') and enumerates the concrete fields it writes (content rights, copyright, age rating, price, review contact/notes). It distinguishes itself from the sibling asc_submit_for_review by positioning as the prerequisite step.

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?

'Use when: once per app before asc_submit_for_review' gives explicit timing and routing. It also states an exclusion condition (App Privacy must be set in the ASC web UI because it is not in Apple's API) and describes the approval-gated retry flow.

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