prepare_app_record

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the two modes (confirm existing vs. report owner-supplied fields when absent) and the explicit 'Never creates an Apple app record' boundary. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the crucial 'never creates an Apple app record' constraint is immediately present, so the most decision-relevant information is visible before the optional scope.

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 has six parameters, zero schema field descriptions, no output schema, and a description that never enumerates the manual bootstrap fields nor how the result is returned. The key mutation-safety is covered by annotations, but enough ambiguity remains that an agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without opening additional resources.

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 0% and the textual description only vaguely references 'by ID/bundle' and 'manual bootstrap fields.' It does not explain the relationships between bundleId, appStoreId, sku, name, platform, and primaryLocale, nor what 'owner-supplied manual bootstrap fields' means concretely. With six parameters, the description carries too little semantic load.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pattern: 'Confirm an existing app by ID/bundle or report owner-supplied manual bootstrap fields when absent.' The explicit negation 'Never creates an Apple app record' clearly distinguishes it from create-style siblings. An agent can reliably tell what this tool is for without opening the schema.

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 implies when to use the tool: when confirming an app exists via bundle ID/appStore ID, or when supplying manual bootstrap fields that are absent. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or draw a when-not-to-use boundary beyond creation, so the agent must infer where this fits among the many planning and inspection tools.

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