testflight_ship

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses the refusal gate on Maestro results, the temporary-keychain/no-system-password behavior, profile-sweep timing rationale, and the explicit non-submission scope. It omits failure/partial-rollback behavior and side effects like created profiles, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 pipeline is front-loaded and compressed into arrow-linked clauses with no filler. It is dense and information-bearing, though the parenthetical about profile sweeps adds minor cognitive load that could be trimmed.

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 needn't be re-explained, and the pipeline, refusal gate, and security posture are covered. The unexplained `approval_id` and unlabeled required params leave a modest gap for a 5-parameter orchestration 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 5 parameters, and the description explains only fragments (project.yml, exact bundle-id matching, `scheme` implied by archive). The required `app_dir` and `project` are not clarified, and `approval_id` — likely a human-approval gate — is entirely unexplained despite being non-obvious. The description does little to 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?

The description states a precise verb chain (signing → archive → profiles → export → `asc builds upload`) for a specific resource (a TestFlight build), and its end-to-end scope clearly distinguishes it from single-step siblings like build_archive, build_export_ipa, and signing_setup_distribution.

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 concrete precondition (refuses unless Maestro smoke flows passed, referencing maestro_test and the e2e_smoke run option) and a clear negative boundary (never submits to App Store review). It doesn't name an explicit alternative tool for the manual 'step-by-step' path, but the when-to-use context is strong.

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