Submit build for TestFlight review

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by requiring user confirmation before the call, though it does not elaborate on consequences or failure modes beyond that.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the external-vs-internal condition, and the user-consent instruction. The important routing information is front-loaded with 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 one-parameter destructive mutation, the description covers purpose, applicability, and the need for user confirmation, while annotations supply the destructive/open-world profile and the schema fully documents the parameter. It could say more about what happens after submission, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, buildId, and the schema already documents it fully as coming from list_builds. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema description coverage.

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 (submits a build to beta app review) and adds the key scope distinction that this is required for external TestFlight testing but not internal testing. It does not explicitly name the sibling submit_for_review as an alternative, but the beta-review focus is clear enough to separate the action.

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 explicitly says when the tool is needed (external TestFlight testing requires beta app review), when it is not needed (internal testers do not need it), and adds a consent prerequisite: 'Ask the user before calling this.' That gives an agent clear routing and safety guidance.

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