submit_for_review

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full behavioral burden. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or expected outcomes. The statement is too brief to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the core action.

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?

Single sentence, zero waste. Front-loads the core action and resource effectively. Perfectly concise for the information it conveys.

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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return value or next steps. It does not. Also omits context like typical state requirements or further configuration needed. Incomplete for a submission tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states the action ('提出します' - submit) and resource ('アプリバージョン' - app version) to a specific destination ('App Review'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_app_store_version' (which modifies but does not submit) and 'list_app_versions' (listing only).

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions. The parameter description for versionId hints at using list_app_versions first, but there is no mention of prerequisites or alternatives. The description is sufficient for basic use but lacks depth for complex scenarios.

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