[Destructive/Release] Submit an App Store version for review

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses irreversible state changes ('cannot be trivially undone'), mandatory preflight dependency, automatic refusal on check failure, and the always-required native confirmation dialog. It even explains the tool will not act silently even if called, which is critical for an agent to anticipate.

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 a single dense paragraph that front-loads the destructive warning and packs the action, preflight, and confirmation into efficient sentences with zero redundancy.

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 high complexity (destructive, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the action, safety dependencies, and user-interaction requirements. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role and invocation constraints, including the preflight prerequisite and refusal behavior.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description's lack of parameter detail is acceptable. No additional semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states 'Submits a version for App Review via the current ReviewSubmission API' with a specific verb and resource. The 'DESTRUCTIVE / RELEASE-CLASS' prefix and reference to preflight distinguish it from sibling tools like asc_version_create or asc_submission_status.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Always runs asc_release_preflight first and refuses to proceed if any check fails,' providing a clear prerequisite and execution order. It also notes it 'never submits silently' and requires human confirmation, guiding when the agent should invoke it.

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