ios_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the focus prerequisite and the "\n" newline convention, but is silent on whether typed text appends or replaces existing content, what error occurs without focus, and what the call returns.

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, front-loaded with the action and target, with the prerequisite and newline convention packed into compact parentheticals. No wasted words.

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 typing tool with no output schema, the core interaction is adequately described. The unexplained `device` parameter and the absence of any failure/return behavior leave meaningful gaps given zero annotation coverage.

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%, so the description must explain both parameters. It partially covers `text` via the newline note but says nothing about `device` — an agent cannot tell whether it selects a simulator, a physical device, or defaults to a single connected target.

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 (type) and target (the field with keyboard focus), which cleanly separates it from ios_tap, the tool the parenthetical tells you to call first. The distinction from siblings is implied rather than named outright, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear precondition — the field must already have keyboard focus, so tap it first — plus the convention for sending Return. It does not address failure cases (e.g., what happens with no focus) or when to prefer ios_press or ios_open_url instead.

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