asc_upload_build

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

With no annotations, the description discloses async execution (5-15 min), immediate job ID return, configuration via environment variables, and interaction with asc_bump_version. Lacks error handling details, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: first covers purpose and configuration, second covers async behavior and version bump nuance. No redundant words, front-loaded with main action.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers essential behavioral context: async, job ID, polling, version bump interaction, and env vars. Missing explicit error behavior or success/failure indicators, but adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

No input parameters, schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description adds value by documenting environment variables (ASC_FASTLANE_*, ASC_UPLOAD_CMD) and default lane, compensating for the lack of parameters.

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 verb (archive, sign, upload), resource (app to TestFlight), and method (fastlane lane with default `fastlane beta`). It distinguishes from siblings like asc_bump_version (version bumping) and asc_job_status (polling).

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?

Explicitly mentions async nature and polling with asc_job_status, and advises when to skip asc_bump_version if the lane increments build number. Could additionally note when to use asc_doctor or asc_submit_review, but sufficient for a single-purpose tool.

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