submit_for_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the required state and the action, but does not mention potential errors, reversibility, or impact of submission. This is minimal but adequate for a simple action.

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 short sentences, no fluff. Every word earns its place: one states the action, the other adds the key precondition. Highly efficient.

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 tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does and the required state. It could mention what happens after submission, but that may be self-evident or handled by App Store Connect.

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 schema already fully describes the parameter ('The app store version ID to submit') with 100% coverage. The description adds the READY_FOR_REVIEW requirement, but does not need to add more. Baseline of 3 applies since schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Submit') with a clear resource ('app store version') and purpose ('for App Review'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like respond_to_review or get_app_version. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite ('version must be in READY_FOR_REVIEW state'), which helps the agent know when the tool is applicable. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives, but sibling names are mostly list/get tools, making this the obvious action tool.

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