Submit a version for App Review

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing the actual order of operations (IAPs first, then version), an explicit abort condition with its cause (first IAP must be bundled on the website) and the side effect that nothing is orphaned, plus the confirm:true guard against accidental outward-facing submission. This is the kind of consequence detail an agent cannot get from annotations or schema.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then sequencing, then the failure mode, then the safety gate. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers ordering, abort semantics, reversal avoidance, and the confirmation gate — the essentials an agent needs. It stops short of describing what a successful submission returns, though with no output schema that is a minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so app_id, confirm, and platform are already documented with enums and patterns; the description only reinforces confirm:true. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no new syntax or format meaning for the parameters themselves.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Submit the editable version to Apple App Review') and scopes it precisely to the editable version, which separates it from sibling tools like release_version or create_version. The added sequencing detail ('First submits any READY_TO_SUBMIT in-app purchases...') makes the operation 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 description implies when to use it (submitting an editable version for review) and states the confirm:true prerequisite and the Pro-feature gate, but never names an alternative such as release_version or explains when this is the wrong tool. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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