apple_create_phased_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does disclose the first-version restriction, a real behavioral trait. However, it says nothing about idempotency, what happens if a phased release already exists, permission requirements, or that the default state is INACTIVE (i.e. that the call may not actually 'enable' anything without the state parameter).

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 compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the restriction appended; no 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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. It does not explain how to actually activate the release or what the response represents.

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 coverage is only 50% and the description never mentions the `state` parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer from the enum alone. Worse, `state` defaults to INACTIVE while the description promises to 'enable' a release, a tension the description should resolve but does not.

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 and resource ('Enable a seven-day phased release'), which clearly separates it from the readable/mutable siblings apple_get_phased_release, apple_update_phased_release and apple_delete_phased_release. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 for non-use ('unavailable for an app's first version'), which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It never mentions the alternative of apple_update_phased_release when a phased release already exists, so 'when-not' is covered but 'alternatives' is not.

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