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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description usefully clarifies what 'destructive' actually means here: it discards the mock GPS override and falls back to the real fix rather than deleting user data. That reframing is genuine added value, though it says nothing about failure modes or required device state.

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 short sentences with the effect front-loaded and the sibling relationship in the second. No filler, no restating of the title.

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 state-reset tool with no output schema, the description plus annotations cover everything needed: what is cleared, what the device falls back to, safety profile, and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (udid) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or targeting detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

Specific verb (clear) plus specific resource (simulated GPS location), and it states the observable effect: the device returns to its real CoreLocation fix. It also names the counterpart tool ios_set_location, so an agent can distinguish it from the setter without opening a schema.

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?

Frames the tool as the counterpart to ios_set_location, which gives clear context for when it is used (undoing an injected position). It does not spell out explicit when-not conditions or distinguish itself from related siblings like ios_get_location or ios_play_location_route, so it falls short of a 5.

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