Upload Android App Bundle (.aab)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose two real behavioral facts: the target must be an open edit and the upload returns a versionCode used downstream. It omits mutation semantics (does it replace an existing bundle?), the role of ackBundleInstallationWarning, and auth/permission requirements.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then the input requirement, then the publish workflow. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by explaining the return value (versionCode) and the end-to-end steps to publish. It lacks detail on the installation-warning acknowledgement flag and any failure/replace behavior, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly in sequence.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the ackBundleInstallationWarning flag. The description adds only 'Provide a local file path', which duplicates the filePath schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (uploads), resource (Android App Bundle .aab), and scope (into an open edit). The '.aab' qualifier cleanly distinguishes it from play_upload_apk and play_upload_deobfuscation_file among the siblings.

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 a clear workflow context: the upload targets an open edit, and the returned versionCode should be assigned via play_update_track then published via play_commit_edit. It names the concrete follow-up tools. It stops short of an explicit when-not alternative (e.g. 'use play_upload_apk for APK files'), though the .aab focus implies it.

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