submit_for_review

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals that this is a consequential action that starts Apple's App Review and typically takes 24-48 hours. It does not mention irreversibility or status transitions, but it does disclose the key side effect.

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 description is two sentences: the first states the action, and the second adds a necessary caution about consequences and preconditions. No filler or redundant 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its consequence, and preconditions. It could mention the version_id parameter explicitly or note the resulting version status, but the low complexity makes the description reasonably complete.

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?

The schema has one parameter, version_id, with 0% description coverage. The description never explicitly names or explains version_id, only referring to 'the given version.' Because schema coverage is low, the description needed to compensate but does not add direct parameter guidance.

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 specific verb ('Submit'), a specific resource ('an App Store version'), and a clear purpose ('for Apple review'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like attach_build_to_version and create_app_store_version, even without naming them.

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 provides explicit preconditions: confirm a build is attached and all required metadata is complete before calling. This signals that the tool is the final submission step, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it.

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