asc_bump_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool updates multiple file types (.xcodeproj/project.pbxproj and project.yml if using xcodegen) and ensures 'all sources stay in sync'. This effectively communicates the scope and side effects. It does not discuss permissions or error handling, but the disclosure is sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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 that front-load the purpose and then detail the behavior. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, achieving high 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?

The tool modifies files and has no output schema. The description explains what files are updated and the synchronization guarantee. It does not specify the return value (e.g., success/failure), but for a mutation tool of this simplicity, the behavior is adequately covered.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the effect of each parameter: 'Increment the build number' for bump_build and 'Omit to keep the current one' for marketing_version, along with an example format. This provides usage context beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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: bump the local app version before a build, incrementing the build number and optionally setting a new marketing version. It specifies the resource (local app version) and action (bump), and is distinct from sibling tools which cover different operations.

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 says 'before a build', providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different that no further guidance is needed.

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