submit_beta_review

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

Annotations indicate not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with the 'submit' action. The description adds behavioral context: Apple reviews once, then all external groups can access. 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?

Description is four sentences, each adding value. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action, and well-structured.

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 is simple (one param, no output schema). The description covers prerequisites (build ID from list_asc_builds), the review process, and distinction between internal/external groups. Missing details like potential errors or delays, but adequate for the complexity.

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 one parameter (build_id) described. The description mentions 'Get the build ID from list_asc_builds', which reinforces but doesn't add significant new meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the action 'Submit a build for TestFlight beta app review' and explains its purpose (required before external beta groups can install). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'submit_for_app_store_review' by specifying the TestFlight context.

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 explains when to use this tool (before external beta groups can install) and when not (internal groups do not require beta review). It also provides a source for the build ID, but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'share_app_internally'.

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