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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description is honest about the conditional behavior ('if it is visible') and discloses the session auto-start behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what happens when no keyboard is visible (silent no-op vs error), which sessions it applies to, or any destructive implications. For a non-destructive dismissal tool this is adequate but minimal.

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, zero wasted words. The first sentence states the action and condition; the second adds the session precondition. Highly efficient and appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 simple single-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description is essentially complete. It covers the action, the condition, and the key prerequisite (session). A brief note about return/error behavior when no keyboard is visible would make it fully complete, but given the tool's simplicity this is minor.

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 100% with a single parameter (udid) described as 'iOS device UDID'. The description doesn't add anything beyond the schema about how udid is used, but with only one self-evident parameter and full coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The parameter's meaning is fully clear from the schema alone.

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 action (dismiss the software keyboard) on a specific target (iOS device) with a clear condition (if visible). It's distinguishable from siblings like ios_send_keys and ios_key_hid which reference keyboard interaction rather than dismissal. Slightly docked because the 'iOS device' scope is implied by the tool name but the action is well-defined.

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 clearly states when to use it (when a keyboard is visible and needs dismissing) and includes the precondition that an active iOS automation session is needed, auto-started if not present. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like ios_send_keys for other keyboard operations, though the simple scope makes this reasonably inferable.

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