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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the behavioral effect (clears simulated location, reverts to real CoreLocation fix) and identifies the tool's scope. It doesn't mention edge cases like no simulated location being set, but for a simple clear operation this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The outcome and counterpart are explained in minimal words, making it highly efficient.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema and simple behavior, the description is complete. It covers what, why, and the relationship to ios_set_location, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 the udid parameter already described as "iOS device UDID." The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Clear the simulated GPS location" and clarifies the outcome: "returns to using its real CoreLocation fix." It also names its counterpart (ios_set_location), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ios_play_location_route and device_clear_location.

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?

It explicitly identifies itself as the counterpart to ios_set_location, giving clear context for when to use it (to undo a simulated location). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like device_clear_location or any exclusions (e.g., not for clearing routes), so it lacks a full when-not-to-use statement.

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