validate_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only names the tool (altool) and the task, but doesn't disclose side effects, credential handling, network usage, potential authentication errors, or whether the validation is read-only. For an operation involving App Store Connect credentials, this is insufficient.

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 that conveys the core purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what happens on success/failure, what output to expect, and how validation works with App Store Connect. Given the tool has 6 parameters including alternate authentication methods, the single-sentence description leaves significant gaps.

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%, meaning every parameter already has a documented meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema already provides adequate semantics. 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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') with a clear resource ('an app for App Store submission') and names the underlying mechanism ('using altool'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_project, archive_project, or export_archive.

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 establishes clear context: validation for App Store submission via altool. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that no obvious alternative tool exists among siblings, making the usage context reasonably clear.

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