aso-push

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 mentions pushing data but doesn't cover critical aspects such as required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the irreversible nature of the operation (unless 'dryRun' is used). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and risks.

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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a clear purpose, earning a high score for conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity of a data-pushing operation with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and output expectations, leaving the agent with incomplete information to use the tool effectively in a real-world context.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how 'app', 'packageName', and 'bundleId' relate) or provide usage examples. This meets the minimum viable level without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 action ('push') and resource ('ASO data from local cache to App Store/Google Play'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'aso-pull', which handles data retrieval rather than pushing, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing local cache data from 'aso-pull' or clarify usage relative to other tools like 'release-create'. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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