scaffold_apple_app_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two meaningful behaviors: a dry_run preview mode and overwrite protection for existing files, plus names the concrete artifacts produced. It does not say what happens on conflict when overwrite is false (error vs skip), whether parent directories are created, or what a dry_run response looks like.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the output artifacts and appends the two safety behaviors. No filler; slightly compressed given the 9-parameter surface.

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 9-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers artifacts and the two safety flags but omits conflict semantics, whether the tool creates the target directory, and what non-dry-run success returns. Adequate but leaves real gaps for a mutating generator.

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 100%, with all 9 parameters including enums and defaults documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions dry_run and overwrite but adds no syntax, constraints, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource: generating starter structure and config files (tauri.conf.json, tokens.css, index.html) for macOS/iPadOS/iOS projects. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling scaffold_base_app_template, leaving the agent to guess which scaffolding tool to pick.

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?

No indication of when to use this versus scaffold_base_app_template, scaffold_macos_component, or scaffold_apple_component. The only usage-adjacent content is the mention of dry_run and overwrite protection, which is capability, not routing guidance.

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