apple_create_review_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose two important traits: the call creates an empty draft (no submission side effect) and it will not replace an existing draft. It omits return shape (draft ID/state), permissions, and any failure modes for conflicting drafts, so the disclosure is good but not complete.

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 clauses, with the verb and the non-submission caveat front-loaded. The middle fragment ("For asset-only, custom product page or product page optimization review") is terse to the point of being slightly opaque, but nothing is padded.

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 workflow entry point with no output schema and no annotations, the description should hint at what comes next (add items, then submit) and what the created draft returns. It covers the creation semantics but leaves the surrounding lifecycle implicit.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and it says nothing about appId or the platform enum (IOS default vs MAC_OS/TV_OS/VISION_OS). The review-type sentence hints at scope but never maps to a parameter.

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 ("Create an empty review draft") plus an explicit non-goal ("does not submit it"), which separates it from apple_submit_review_submission. It stops short of naming the sibling tools, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 selection rule for use: asset-only, custom product page, or product page optimization review types. It also warns that existing drafts must be resumed rather than replaced, but never names which tool performs the resume, leaving the agent to hunt through apple_list_review_submissions / apple_get_review_submission.

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