apple_upload_build

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ordered side effects (local SHA-256 verification before any API request, reserving upload and file, sending presigned ranges, committing an MD5 transfer checksum). It stops short of stating that a build record is created irreversibly, what happens if the transfer fails mid-way, or whether retries are idempotent.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (verify, reserve, send ranges, commit checksum, optional wait) carries real information. The chained colon-and-comma construction is dense enough to be slightly hard to parse but wastes no words.

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 10-parameter, 5-stage mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the procedure but not the result: it does not say what a successful call yields (upload ID, build state) or how failures after the commit are surfaced. That leaves an agent unable to reason about the outcome without probing.

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 coverage is 70%, and the properties already describe the local pre-flight checks for expectedSha256 and expectedFileSize in the same terms the description uses. The description adds no semantics for appId, filePath, versionString, buildNumber, platform, or pollIntervalSeconds, so it does not meaningfully exceed what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Upload a signed IPA through the App Store Connect Build Uploads API') and enumerates the full upload pipeline, which clearly separates it from siblings like apple_upload_asset (assets rather than builds) or google_upload_bundle. An agent can identify the tool without opening 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?

The phrase 'optionally wait for import' implies a mode selection, and 'signed IPA' implies a prerequisite, but the description never says when to prefer this over apple_get_build_upload / apple_wait_for_build_upload for an existing upload, nor when to set waitForProcessing=false. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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