apple_delete_build_upload

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully flags the state gate that will block or error on PROCESSING/COMPLETE uploads, but says nothing about whether the discard is irreversible, what error surfaces if the state is wrong, or what permissions are needed for a destructive mutation.

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 sentence with zero filler; the destructive action and its state restriction come first, and the exclusion clause follows. Everything earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, the description covers the critical usage constraint and prerequisite. It stops short of noting irreversibility or post-delete state, which is the main remaining gap for a mutation with no annotation safety net.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already describing buildUploadId as the 'Build Upload ID to discard'. The description adds no format, ID-source, or lookup guidance beyond that, so the baseline 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 (discard) and resource (Build Upload) and constrains it to two named states, AWAITING_UPLOAD and FAILED. That state scoping separates it cleanly from sibling tools like apple_upload_build and apple_wait_for_build_upload without needing the schema.

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?

Explicitly names the prerequisite check (apple_get_build_upload) and carves out the exclusion cases: do not use for PROCESSING or COMPLETE uploads. Both the when and the when-not are stated.

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