Store Setup

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds meaningful context beyond them: the human-approval loop for 'apply', the CONFLICT reporting behavior of 'check', the approval_required refusal, and the return shape. It does not, however, spell out what 'apply' actually mutates or what reverting looks like, given the destructive flag.

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-loaded with the core action and its inputs, then the usage/mode guidance and return shape in short clauses. Dense but every line carries information; only the idempotency mention slightly overlaps the annotation.

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 multi-mode, approval-gated setup tool this covers the sources, modes, approval flow, conflict reporting and return contract, and it routes the agent away from the granular asc_* siblings. With an output schema present, no further return-value explanation is required.

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% and every parameter is documented in the schema, including the mode, target values and the approval_id workflow. The description largely echoes the schema's mode definition rather than adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('setup' of App Store Connect and RevenueCat store side) with the exact input artifacts (app.spec.json, listing.json) and the scope of what is configured. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling write tools ('Prefer this over the individual asc_* write tools; asc_create_app is still separate').

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use statement ('the standard way to set up the store side'), enumerates the three modes with their semantics (plan/check/apply), and names the alternatives it supersedes as well as the one it does not (asc_create_app). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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