ios_terminate

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't say whether the app's unsaved state is discarded, whether the kill is forced or graceful, what happens if the app isn't running, or what errors can occur -- all critical for a destructive mutation.

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?

Three words is not conciseness here, it is under-specification; nothing is front-loaded because there is essentially no content. Every needed detail was omitted rather than compressed.

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?

With two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to carry everything and instead says almost nothing. An agent cannot reliably call this tool from the definition alone.

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 0%, and the description mentions neither parameter. It doesn't clarify that bundle_id must match an installed app (obtainable via ios_apps) or what the optional device selector means in a multi-device context.

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?

"Quit an app" gives a verb plus resource, so the basic intent is inferable, but it never says this is the inverse of ios_launch or that the target is an installed iOS app identified by bundle id. Compared with siblings like ios_launch and ios_apps, the distinction is only implied.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus ios_launch, ios_apps, or the task tools, and no preconditions (e.g., app must be running, device targeting). An agent must guess at the appropriate context.

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