Update an existing App Store version's version string, copyright, or release timing by providing the version ID and optional fields.
Update an existing App Store version's version, copyright, or release timing
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| copyright | No | ||
| versionId | Yes | App Store Version ID | |
| releaseType | No | ||
| versionString | No | ||
| earliestReleaseDate | No | ISO 8601 date-time with timezone; required for SCHEDULED releases |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutation tool. It says nothing about permission/role requirements, whether the version must be in an editable state, whether changes are reversible, or what happens to release fields the caller omits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler and the resource stated immediately. It is efficient, though at only one clause it is thin rather than tight – there is no second sentence carrying guidance.
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?
A 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more: editability preconditions, how releaseType values behave, and how this differs from the release/submit siblings are all absent. The agent can guess the call but cannot call it confidently in edge cases.
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?
The description names the three touchable areas (version string, copyright, release timing) which roughly maps to versionString, copyright, and releaseType/earliestReleaseDate, but it adds no semantics beyond the property names. With only 40% schema coverage, it leaves the releaseType enum values and the SCHEDULED→earliestReleaseDate coupling (documented only in the schema) unexplained in prose.
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 ('Update') and a specific resource ('an existing App Store version'), plus the field groups touched. It distinguishes itself from apple_create_version by the word 'existing', but never names siblings or the App Store Connect concept it belongs to.
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?
No indication of when to call this versus apple_create_version, apple_update_version_localization, apple_release_version, or apple_update_app. No preconditions (e.g. version must not be in review) are stated, so the agent must infer the entire usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.