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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It accurately conveys that this is a device-modifying install operation and that no session is needed, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as overwriting an existing app, signing requirements, or failure behavior.

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 no filler. The primary action and artifact types are front-loaded, followed by the key prerequisite clarification about no automation session.

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 two-parameter install tool, this is largely complete: it names the input types, the target platform, and the lack of a session requirement. The main gap is that no output or success/failure indication is mentioned, and there are no annotations to fill that in.

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%, so both parameters (path and udid) are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action: install an IPA or .app on an iOS device. It is easily distinguished from siblings like ios_uninstall_app and ios_launch_app by naming both the operation and the target platform.

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 a clear usage context: installing an IPA or .app onto an iOS device. It adds the useful contextual cue that no automation session is required, which helps an agent know when this direct tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions.

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