store_setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares idempotency, distinguishes simulated vs. live writes, discloses that check reports CONFLICT, and that apply requires human approval via 'appfactory approve <id>'. It also documents execution ordering dependencies (capabilities first, availability before prices) that materially affect safe invocation.

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 leading sentence is well front-loaded, but the second paragraph is a single dense run-on parenthetical enumerating every ASC/RC step, which hurts parseability. Much of that ordering detail is valuable but could be trimmed or structured as a list.

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 high-complexity orchestrator with an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers modes, targets, ordering, and the approval gate adequately. The main gaps are the undefined app_dir and rc_project_id semantics, which leave minor ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 6 parameters. It well documents mode, target, and rc_apple_notification_url (including where to obtain it), and implies approval_id via the approve flow. But app_dir and rc_project_id are left undefined in both schema and description, so compensation is only 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 and scope ('Idempotent App Store Connect + RevenueCat setup') plus the input artifacts (app.spec.json + listing.json). An agent can tell this is the full-store orchestration tool versus the granular asc_*/revenuecat_setup siblings. It does not explicitly name the alternatives it supersedes, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

The mode enumeration (plan offline / check live-reads-with-simulated-writes / apply live-writes) with the human-approval gate is effective when-to-use guidance, and target=capabilities|asc|rc|all routes scope. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this over sibling tools like setup_services or revenuecat_setup, so it stops short of a 5.

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