[Write] Ensure an App Store version exists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (idempotent get-or-create), the return structure ({ version, created }), and dryRun support. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects on existing versions, but it clearly states it returns the existing version without implying modification, which is transparent enough.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with 'Write' and the core purpose. Every phrase earns its place, and the dryRun mention is integrated naturally. 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?

The description covers the central get-or-create flow and return shape, but lacks details about how the optional parameters (platform, releaseType, copyright, earliestReleaseDate) interact with the creation process. Without an output schema, it could clarify edge cases like what happens if the version already exists with different attributes. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 57%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like copyright, releaseType, and earliestReleaseDate. However, it only mentions dryRun, adding little beyond the schema. It does not explain how releaseType or other optional parameters affect the creation behavior, leaving a significant gap.

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 unique behavior: returns an existing App Store version or creates it if missing. It uses specific verbs ('Returns', 'creates') and explicitly differentiates from a manual get/check/create sequence, distinguishing it from siblings like asc_version_get and asc_version_create.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to avoid a manual get/exists-check/create/conflict sequence. This implies it's the preferred alternative to composing separate calls, and it mentions dryRun for previewing. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough.

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