apple_upload_asset

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the commit-then-verify processing lifecycle and that verification is checked against a specId, but omits permission requirements, what happens on spec mismatch/failure, and the waiting/polling semantics that materially shape the call.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the prerequisite and the follow-up tool named last. No filler.

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 10-parameter mutation with 10% schema coverage, no annotations and no output schema needs far more: the meaning and defaults/limits of the polling and timeout parameters, what referenceName/category do, and what a failed verification returns are all absent.

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 only 10% across 10 parameters. The description reinforces expectedSpecId (already documented in the schema) and mentions a 'uploaded=true' commit flag that does not even appear as a parameter, while category, mediaType, referenceName, filePath, previewFrameTimeCode, waitForProcessing, timeoutSeconds and pollIntervalSeconds go unexplained in either place.

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 (upload) and resource (image/video into the App Asset Library), plus the follow-on commit/verify steps. It implicitly separates itself from apple_upload_screenshot (screenshot sets) and apple_create_placement (placements), which the last sentence makes explicit.

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?

Names the prerequisite source of specId (apple_get_asset_specs) and routes the reuse-across-localizations case to apple_create_placement. No explicit when-not-to-use case, but the workflow guidance is concrete.

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