Terminate an app

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations: it does not say whether app state/data is preserved, what happens if the app is not running, whether it targets the booted device by default, or what errors look like. Terminating a process is also a borderline case for destructiveHint=false, which the description does nothing to clarify.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. Nothing in it needs deleting, yet there is little substance for the agent to act on.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and half its parameters undocumented, the description should cover side effects, device targeting, and failure modes. None of that is present, leaving the agent to guess at behavior that matters for a process-kill operation.

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 50%: the `device` parameter is documented in the schema, but `bundleId` has no schema description at all. The description never mentions either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the missing bundleId semantics (format, e.g. com.example.app, or required-ness).

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?

"Kills the app process on the simulator" gives a specific verb (kills) and resource (app process), which is clearly distinct from siblings like ios_launch_app or ios_install_app. It stops short of naming or contrasting those siblings explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this instead of ios_launch_app, ios_shutdown, or android_stop_app, and no mention of prerequisites such as the device being booted or the app actually running. The agent must infer all of this from the tool name alone.

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