deliver_screenshots

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the checksum-based incremental strategy, the skip condition (local MD5 == ASC sourceFileChecksum), and what gets uploaded (missing/changed only). It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or failure handling, but the core sync behavior is well explained.

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 behavior and prerequisite are front-loaded, but the parenthetical about fastlane randomly dropping images is marketing-style justification that does not help invocation. Trimming that clause would make the description tighter without losing actionable 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 return values need not be described, and the behavior and prerequisite are covered. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema description coverage, the omission of any parameter explanation and lack of auth/permission context leave gaps for a mutation tool.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning but does not. It never explains what app_dir, bundle_id, or approval_id expect, leaving the agent to infer their formats and roles.

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 ('Upload screenshots to the ASC draft') and specifies the sync mechanism (checksum-based incremental). It clearly distinguishes its behavior from fastlane, but does not differentiate itself from close siblings like screenshot_sync or deliver_screenshots_audit, leaving some ambiguity about which upload path to choose.

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?

Explicitly names a prerequisite ('run screenshot_build_all first') and implies when not to use fastlane. It gives clear context for invocation but stops short of naming alternative tools or exclusions among siblings such as screenshot_sync.

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