Submit for App Review

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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations, it discloses the safe default (dry_run=true returns a plan), the required human confirmation loop, the ASC_WRITE=1 authorization requirement, and the boundaries of what the API can verify (privacy questionnaire, pricing, agreements). This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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-loads the core action, then the check sequence, then the caveats and dry_run workflow. Each sentence carries actionable information, though the 'things the API can't check' list is dense enough to be slightly long.

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 mutating, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mutation's effect, the returned plan artifact, the safety workflow, and auth prerequisites. Nothing essential for a correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nonetheless adds meaning by explaining the dry_run contract, the pre-flight check behavior that skip_checks bypasses, and the default 'editable' version semantics. It slightly enriches rather than merely restating the schema.

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 (submits) and resource (the version being prepared, to App Review), and scopes it to the editable version by default. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like prepare_version (which readies a version) and cancel_review_submission (which reverses this).

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 workflow context well: it runs pre-flight checks first and stops on missing items, and lays out the two-step dry_run confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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