iphone_terminate_app

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 does not disclose whether termination is a forceful kill, whether unsaved state is lost, whether the app must be running, or what happens if the app isn't found — all critical for a destructive-ish operation.

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, purpose front-loaded and the parameter hint second. Zero waste and easy to parse.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the input adequately but leaves the behavioral side thin. It's sufficient to invoke the tool but not to predict outcomes or handle failure cases.

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 0% (the schema only says 'string, title: App'), so the description meaningfully compensates by specifying that the value accepts either a Bundle ID or a display name. That is exactly the disambiguation an agent needs, though it omits case-sensitivity or format examples.

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 (terminate) and resource (App process), which clearly separates it from the launch_app/open_url siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling or scoping when termination applies, so it's clear but not perfectly differentiated.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the counterpart to iphone_launch_app, and nothing says what to do if the app is already closed or whether a relaunch is expected afterward.

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