submit_for_review

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects: it is outward-facing, requires confirm:true, submits IAPs first, and aborts on first IAP to avoid orphaning. It also mentions returning manual steps, giving a complete picture of behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. Each of the four sentences adds value: purpose, order of operations, abort condition, and confirm/pro feature. The use of all-caps for critical conditions is purposeful and not wasteful.

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 submission tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential flow, including the abort branch and manual steps. It sufficiently explains the tool's role and caveats, and success return details are handled by sibling tools like review_status.

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%, and the schema already explains all three parameters. The description adds emphasis on confirm being required but does not offer significant new parameter-level meaning, so 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 states the tool submits the editable version to Apple App Review, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like release_version by focusing on the submission step and mentions the sequence with IAPs.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for submitting to App Review and notes the confirm requirement and Pro feature. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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