Create App Store version

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing a precondition failure mode: 'Fails if the platform already has a version in progress.' It does not discuss idempotency or auth requirements, but the key behavioral constraint is surfaced.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed immediately by the constraint. 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?

For a mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety profile, the description supplies the essential precondition and purpose. Missing only minor details like permission requirements or whether the new version is returned, which are less critical given the rich schema.

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 100%, with parameter descriptions including enums and the SCHEDULED/earliestReleaseDate dependency. The description adds only indirect meaning via the platform-scoped failure condition and does not document parameters itself, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Creates a new App Store version') with a concrete example (2.1.0) and the downstream purpose (metadata, build, review submission). This clearly distinguishes it from list_app_store_versions and submit_for_review.

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 'ready for metadata, a build and review submission' implies the workflow position (before those steps), and the failure condition gives a when-not signal. It does not name an explicit alternative tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to place it in the release flow.

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