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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it succeeds. It discloses the conditional side effects: leaving the proxy and profile running for other consumers, returning stillRunning: true in that case, and only removing/killing/discarding when every consumer has stopped. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

The description is compact and information-dense. The main action is front-loaded, and the multi-consumer behavior is explained in a few purposeful sentences without redundancy. Every sentence adds necessary guidance, especially around the stillRunning response and cleanup semantics.

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 is highly complete for a single-parameter tool with no output schema, covering the critical conditional behavior and side effects. It slightly omits the general response shape for the fully-stopped case and any error scenarios, but these are not essential for correct selection and invocation.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, udid, with a description and 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond 'for a device,' but the schema already sufficiently documents the only parameter. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Stop TLS inspection for a device,' and further scopes it to 'THIS (AI) consumer only.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the broader ios_traffic_start/status/flow siblings and communicates exactly what operation is performed.

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 explains when this tool should be used—to stop this consumer's TLS inspection—and provides important conditional context about shared capture sessions. It does not explicitly name alternatives like ios_traffic_status for checking remaining consumers, but the usage context is still clear enough to guide correct invocation.

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