apple_submit_review_submission

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 key behavioral trait: this action starts App Review, while saving or attaching an item does not. That is exactly the side-effect context an agent needs before mutating state. It doesn't cover permissions, idempotency, or whether submission can be undone/withdrawn (apple_cancel_submission exists), which a fully transparent definition would mention.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and the highest-risk constraint (exact item IDs). Every sentence adds information; no filler. Slightly dense but well ordered.

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 state-changing submission tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical side effect and the itemIds contract but leaves appId, submissionId, and platform unexplained, and doesn't say what the call returns or what failure looks like.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains itemIds well (must be the exact set returned by apple_get_review_submission) but says nothing about appId, submissionId, or the platform enum. Partial compensation only.

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 (submit) and resource (review draft / submission) and enumerates what the draft contains (assets, custom pages, experiments). It implicitly separates itself from apple_add_review_submission_item by noting that attaching an item does not start review, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearby apple_submit_for_review sibling.

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 concrete precondition ('itemIds must exactly match all review item IDs returned by apple_get_review_submission') which routes the agent to the prerequisite tool first. It also marks the boundary versus saving/attaching. What's missing is an explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. draft not yet inspected, or use apple_submit_for_review for version submissions).

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