attach_build_to_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the intended outcome but does not disclose whether attaching a build replaces an existing one, whether the version must be in a particular state, or whether the operation is reversible. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action, adds the key eligibility qualifier, and states the intended outcome. There is no repetition or filler.

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 simple two-parameter attach operation with an output schema present, the description provides adequate purpose and parameter clarity. It is incomplete on side effects, preconditions, and behavior when re-attaching a build, so an agent may not fully understand the operational consequences.

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%, but the description compensates by mapping build_id to a 'processed TestFlight build' and version_id to an 'App Store version.' It does not explain how to find these IDs or what formats are accepted, but the description makes both required parameters semantically meaningful.

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 names a specific action (attach), a specific resource (a processed TestFlight build), and a target resource (an App Store version). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_app_store_version and submit_for_review, and the 'processed' qualification narrows which builds are relevant.

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 description gives clear context for when this tool is used: when a build is processed and the version needs to be ready for submission. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, such as not using it after review has already started, but the intended workflow position is reasonably clear.

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