apple_release_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the two most safety-critical traits: the operation is irreversible, and it is a 'request' rather than an immediate state change. It omits what happens after the request (resulting state, whether Apple review intercedes) and any auth/failure behavior, so not a 5.

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 the most consequential word ('Irreversibly') front-loaded. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter, side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers the precondition, the irreversibility warning, and the async 'request' nature. It leaves the post-call lifecycle state unexplained, which is the only material gap.

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?

One required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Approved App Store Version ID'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or source hint for versionId beyond what the schema states, which is the documented baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 (request release) and resource (an approved version), plus the exact precondition state PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE. This separates it cleanly from siblings like apple_submit_for_review or apple_update_version without the agent needing to open any 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?

The prerequisite condition (version must be approved and in PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE) is stated explicitly, which tells the agent when the call is valid. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. submit_for_review vs release) or stating when not to use it, so it is not a full 5.

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