release_preflight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool 'checks' and 'catches rejection causes,' which implies a read-only audit. However, it doesn't explicitly confirm that no modifications are made, nor does it describe the output format or any potential side effects (e.g., requiring a build to exist). This leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose ('Pre-submission audit'), followed by specific checks and the benefit. Every phrase carries meaning, including the 'Pro feature' note, which is a useful business context. 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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the what (checks metadata, screenshots, etc.), the when (pre-submission), and the why (catch rejection causes). It lacks an explicit statement of what the tool returns (e.g., a report of issues), but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to use it appropriately.

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 only parameter, app_id, is fully described in the schema as 'App Store Connect app ID,' providing 100% coverage. The description does not add details about the parameter beyond implying it identifies the app to audit, but since the schema already explains it, the baseline of 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 identifies the tool's function as a pre-submission audit, listing specific checks (metadata, character limits, screenshots, build status) and its goal (catching rejection causes). This distinguishes it from siblings like submit_for_review (which submits) and review_status (which shows current status), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 'before you submit' provides clear temporal context for when to use this tool, implying it should be called prior to submit_for_review. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the 'pre-submission' framing and the list of checks imply it's the gatekeeper before submission, giving adequate guidance.

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