share_app_internally

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

Annotations are non‑destructive and not read‑only. The description adds behavioral context: 'no track, no review, no version code ceremony' and explains the output (install URL). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, front‑loaded with the main action, no wasted words.

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 single‑parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value and prerequisite, providing sufficient context for correct use.

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 a clear description for aab_url. The description does not add further parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline score applies.

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 clearly states the verb (upload), the resource (AAB from Codemagic), and the result (install URL for internal app sharing). It distinguishes from siblings like upload_to_google_play by emphasizing no track or review.

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?

The description gives context for use ('Ideal for quick QA before promoting to a track') and a prerequisite ('Testers need the internal app sharing feature enabled'). It does not explicitly list when not to use or name alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough for an agent.

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