Apple Permission Guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with those by framing the tool as an explanation rather than a mutation. It adds useful context about being scoped to an Apple domain on macOS, but it does not disclose whether the tool inspects current permissions or simply returns instructions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Explain how to grant' appears immediately and the platform and scoping are included without extra 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 read-only guide tool with an output schema and safe annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of any enumeration or examples for the 'domain' parameter—combined with 0% schema coverage—leaves the agent to infer acceptable values, which is a meaningful gap.

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% and there is a single optional 'domain' parameter with a default of 'all.' The description adds that domain refers to an Apple domain, but it does not enumerate valid domain values, provide examples, or clarify how 'all' behaves. Because the schema provides no descriptions, the description carries the burden and only partially compensates.

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?

The description clearly states a specific action—'Explain how to grant'—and a specific resource—'Apple permissions needed by a given Apple domain on macOS.' Its informational nature distinguishes it from sibling tools like apple_update_preferences and apple_recheck_permissions, which actually modify or recheck permissions.

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 implies use when a user needs guidance on granting permissions for a given Apple domain, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are provided.

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