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

With no annotations provided, the description does real work by naming the destructive effects: permissions become undetermined, location resets, the camera view is cleared, and the log is wiped. What it omits is whether the session token survives the reset, whether apps must be reopened, and whether in-flight operations are cancelled — material facts for a state-wiping tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core action first and the reset facets compressed into a parenthetical — efficient with no filler. The trailing "optionally with a new profile" clause is the one part that costs more ambiguity than it earns.

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?

This is an unannotated, state-destroying tool with no output schema and two of three parameters undocumented, and the description does not close those gaps. It should say what the call returns (e.g., a fresh session handle), whether the prior session becomes invalid, and what `api` and `platform` control.

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 only 33% (only `session` is documented, as "Session from open_app"), so the description needed to explain `api` and `platform` and does not. Worse, it promises "optionally with a new profile" while no `profile` parameter exists in the schema, leaving the agent unsure which field (if any) carries that intent and creating a mismatch with the actual inputs.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Put the simulated phone back to a known state") and enumerates the exact facets being reset: permissions, location, camera, log. This scope enumeration makes it clearly distinct from siblings like set_device or end_session, which touch only one facet each.

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 phrase "back to a known state" implies when to reach for it (recovering a clean baseline between test runs), and "optionally with a new profile" hints at a variant mode. However, it never states when NOT to use it, nor does it route the agent to alternatives such as end_session (tear down entirely) or set_device (change one setting), so usage is only implied.

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