submit_for_app_store_review

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: the build must have processingState VALID, and prerequisites must be met. It warns about expected states without contradicting 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?

The description is extremely concise, with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential usage guidance and an alternative. Every sentence is valuable and front-loaded.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It includes prerequisites, alternative tools, and validation steps, ensuring the agent can use it correctly in context.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema parameter descriptions. It references build_id and version but provides no additional parameter-specific semantics.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a processed build to an App Store version and submit it for review.' It distinguishes from siblings by referencing prerequisite tools like list_asc_builds and validate_app_submission.

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?

Explicit guidelines are provided: use only after the build's processingState is VALID (confirmed via list_asc_builds), and after setting version metadata and export compliance. The alternative validate_app_submission is mentioned for catching blockers.

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