upload_to_google_play

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are minimal, so the description carries the burden. It adds behavioral context like the source of the artifact (Codemagic) and the track recommendation, but misses prerequisites (e.g., app must exist in Play Console) and potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing releases). The behavior is adequately but not thoroughly described.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two short sentences with usage guidance. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy. It is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main workflow and provides key guidance. However, it omits important context like authentication requirements, whether the app must already be added to Google Play (sibling add_application exists), and what the tool returns. The agent likely needs additional information for correct invocation.

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 each parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds marginal value: it specifies that aab_url should come from wait_for_build, recommends the internal track, and notes that release_name is optional with auto-generation. This enhances understanding but does not significantly surpass the schema's own descriptions.

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: downloading an AAB artifact from Codemagic and publishing it to a Google Play track. It distinguishes the tool from siblings by mentioning manual promotion via Play Console, implying a separate tool for promotion (promote_google_play_release). The verb+resource combination is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly instructs to use the AAB artifact URL from wait_for_build and advises starting with the internal track for safety. It also hints at using other tools for promotion ('can be promoted manually'), providing clear when-to-use and alternative paths.

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