Cancel App Review submission

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the safe workflow (dry_run defaults to true, returns a plan, show it to the user, then re-call with dry_run: false) and the auth prerequisite (ASC_WRITE=1). This is exactly the extra behavioral context that annotations alone (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and edge case, then the safety workflow and auth need. Well structured, with minor redundancy in re-explaining the dry_run default already in the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation semantics, destructive safeguard, and auth requirement adequately. It does not describe the shape of the returned plan, a minor gap.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description's dry_run explanation largely repeats the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 ('Withdraws the app's active review submission') plus the precise scope (waiting for or in review) and an edge case (READY_FOR_REVIEW draft). It reads as the clear inverse of submit_for_review, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Explains the two situations the tool handles (active submission vs. failed-at-last-step draft), which implicitly tells the agent when it applies, but gives no explicit comparison to alternatives or an explicit 'use this when' statement.

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