setup_app_store_signing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main operations: downloading profiles, installing them, and writing a plist, plus the prerequisite. Could mention side effects like overwriting existing profiles, but overall it is transparent enough.

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 sentences: the first states the purpose and key actions, the second notes a prerequisite and feature level. Every sentence contributes value; no fluff or repetition.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description covers what, why, and prerequisites. It lacks detail on return values or exact effects of installing profiles, but given the moderate complexity, it is sufficiently complete.

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% for both parameters (app_id and output_plist). The description adds context about the app's profiles but does not introduce additional parameter semantics, so 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 purpose: to prepare App Store binary signing by downloading/installing provisioning profiles and writing an ExportOptions.plist. This distinguishes it from siblings like build_and_archive or upload_binary, which focus on building and uploading.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use the tool: when lacking cloud-signing permission. It also states a prerequisite (Apple Distribution certificate in keychain). It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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