release_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by noting the action is 'Outward-facing' (public impact), requires 'confirm:true' as a safety guard, and is a 'Pro feature' (entitlement). This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's behavior, though it could mention irreversibility or specific failure modes.

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 a single, concise sentence (17 words) that front-loads the primary purpose ('Release an approved version... to the public App Store') and then adds key qualifiers ('Outward-facing', 'requires confirm:true', 'Pro feature'). Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple action tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the prerequisite state, the public nature, the confirmation requirement, and the entitlement. It does not describe return values, but the tool's simplicity and the schema's parameter descriptions make this an acceptable omission.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (app_id and confirm), giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond restating that confirm:true is required, which is already in the schema. Baseline score 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 states the tool's function: 'Release an approved version ... to the public App Store.' It includes the specific state (PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE) and outward-facing nature, which distinguishes it from related tools like submit_for_review or release_preflight, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies when to use the tool: it is for releasing a version that is already in the PENDING_DEVELOPER_RELEASE state. It also notes that confirm:true is required, which serves as a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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