asc_submit_for_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses a critical non-obvious trait: human approval is always required even when approvals are disabled. That is genuinely valuable and not derivable from the schema. It stops short of describing what happens after a successful submission (irreversibility, follow-up state), leaving a minor 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?

Three tight sentences with the action front-loaded, followed by the gating rule and its consequence. Nothing is padded and every sentence adds a distinct, actionable fact.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description adequately covers the preconditions an agent needs to avoid a failed call, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The only real shortfall is the undocumented app_id parameter.

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%, so the description must compensate. It partially does — it conveys that 'approval_id' must be valid and comes from `appfactory approve <id>`, giving that parameter real meaning. But 'app_id' remains entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so compensation is incomplete.

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 opens with a specific, unambiguous verb+resource: 'SUBMIT the app to App Store review.' An agent can distinguish this from adjacent siblings like asc_finalize_submission_requirements or deliver_metadata without further reading, since the scope (App Store review submission) is stated explicitly.

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?

It gives a strong precondition — a valid approval_id obtained out-of-band via `appfactory approve <id>` — and even states a when-not condition ('Without a valid approval_id nothing is submitted'). It does not, however, compare itself to any alternative tool or explain sequencing relative to finalize/preflight siblings, so it falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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