Submit version for App Review

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the build/metadata prerequisites and the reuse-an-open-submission behavior. The confirmation requirement is the key behavioral disclosure missing from the structured data. It doesn't describe failure modes or resulting submission state, which keeps it from a 5.

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 carrying a distinct piece of information: purpose, preconditions, submission-reuse behavior, and the confirmation rule. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 destructive, open-world, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, submission reuse, and the confirmation gate. It could say more about what a successful submission returns or what happens to an already-submitted version, but the essentials are present.

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% and both parameters already document their source tool (list_apps, list_app_store_versions). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Submits an App Store version to App Review') and is cleanly distinguishable from the sibling submit_build_for_beta_review, which targets beta review rather than App 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?

States the prerequisites that gate the call (build attached, complete metadata) and adds an explicit human-in-loop rule ('Ask the user before calling this'). It doesn't name the beta-review alternative or state what to do when prerequisites are unmet, but the conditions for use are clear.

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