build_and_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses implementation (xcodebuild), environment requirement (Xcode), and input requirements (scheme, plist), but omits important behavioral traits such as whether the output directory is overwritten, code signing prerequisites, time-to-completion, or what exactly is produced besides the .ipa.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted 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?

The description covers purpose and key prerequisites, but for a build tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, it could elaborate on expected outputs, failure scenarios, or how to handle workspaces. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description mentions scheme and ExportOptions.plist as required but adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Build, archive, and export a signed .ipa via xcodebuild'. It uses a specific verb-resource pair and is distinct from all sibling tools, which focus on App Store Connect management.

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 description provides clear context and prerequisites: 'requires Xcode on this Mac', 'Needs a scheme and an ExportOptions.plist', and 'Pro feature'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the tool's unique function makes this less critical.

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