Release an approved version

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description adds real context beyond that: the operation is outward-facing (goes to the live public store), it is gated behind confirm:true, it is a Pro-tier feature, and it demands a specific prior state. It does not address reversibility or what happens if the version is not yet approved, so it is not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded clauses with zero filler: what it does, the required state, the outward-facing confirm gate, and the tier. Every fragment earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the precondition, the safety gate, and the tier requirement. With no output schema it could say a little more about what the agent should expect back, but nothing needed 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both app_id and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the confirm:true requirement, adding emphasis but no new syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

It states a specific verb (release), the resource (a version), the required source state (PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE) and the destination (public App Store). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like submit_for_review, release_preflight, and manage_phased_release.

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 gives a clear precondition (version must be in PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE) and two gating conditions (confirm:true, Pro feature). It does not name an alternative sibling such as release_preflight or explain what to do if the version is not yet approved, so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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