apple_cancel_submission

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the mutation mechanism (PATCH with attributes.canceled=true), the target resource, and that the operation is conditional. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the submission is no longer cancellable, or permission/auth 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?

The action and precondition are front-loaded in the first sentence, with mechanism following. The third sentence about the legacy endpoint is longer than necessary but earns its place by preventing a wrong-endpoint misconception.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is acted upon and how. The remaining gap is outcome semantics — what the agent should expect if cancellation fails — which an agent would want before calling a destructive operation.

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 the single submissionId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description's note that submissionId comes from apple_submit_for_review restates the schema text rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Cancel an in-review submission') and names the operation that produces the target resource (apple_submit_for_review). It also distinguishes itself from the legacy appStoreVersionSubmissions DELETE endpoint, which removes ambiguity about which cancellation mechanism applies.

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 phrase 'if still possible' and 'in-review submission' communicate preconditions, and it points back to apple_submit_for_review as the source of the ID. It does not explicitly state what to do when cancellation is no longer possible or name sibling alternatives (e.g. apple_respond_to_review), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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