deliver_metadata

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — that it uses a direct API path and bypasses a known fastlane 'No data' bug — and hints at gating ('ASO-gated'), but it says nothing about permissions, what gets overwritten in the draft, failure modes, or reversibility.

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?

Extremely terse and front-loaded — the core action leads and the parenthetical rationale follows. It earns most of its words, though 'ASO-gated' is a compressed term that adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 documented. But for a write/gated operation with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits prerequisite conditions, parameter meaning, and error/side-effect behavior — substantial gaps remain.

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% and the description explains none of the three parameters. 'approval_id' in particular is an opaque, non-obvious identifier whose role (which approval, issued where) is never clarified, and app_dir vs bundle_id precedence is left ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Upload metadata to the ASC draft'), which is clear enough to distinguish from read-oriented siblings like metadata_check or metadata_export. However, it does not name or contrast with the many nearby metadata tools (metadata_render_listing, metadata_listing_check, aso_validate_metadata), and the trailing 'ASO-gated' is a cryptic qualifier rather than a clarifying one.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'ASO-gated' hints at a prerequisite stage/approval but never states the condition or names an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the presence of an 'approval_id' parameter that some approval workflow precedes invocation.

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