Cancel App Review submission

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the dry_run default-true confirmation pattern and the required ASC_WRITE=1 environment flag. These are the exact details an agent needs to avoid an unintended destructive call, and they go beyond what the annotations expose.

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 with zero filler; the action and scope come first, followed by the destructive/dry-run warning and auth requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential concerns: what it changes, that it is destructive, the dry-run confirmation workflow, and the auth prerequisite. There is no output schema to explain, and nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 app, dry_run, and platform are already fully documented in the schema (including defaults and the platform enum). The description only reinforces the dry_run default and does not add syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the 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 states a specific verb (withdraws/cancels) and resource (the app's active review submission), and narrows scope to submissions 'waiting for or in review'. The stated effect ('so the version can be edited again') tells the agent exactly what state change to expect, distinguishing it cleanly from siblings like submit_for_review or prepare_version.

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 gives a clear precondition (an active submission in waiting-for or in-review state) and an explicit two-step invocation flow: call with the default dry_run, show the plan, then re-call with dry_run: false. It also states the ASC_WRITE=1 prerequisite. It does not name alternative tools, so it falls just short of the 5 bar.

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