appium_mobile_permissions

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that 'reset' affects iOS privacy prompts and that 'update' modifies permissions, but it does not specify side effects, requirements (e.g., simulator must be booted), whether changes persist, or what happens to existing settings. The description adds some context beyond the annotations but omits important behavioral details.

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 one efficient sentence that front-loads the core verbs and resources, then points to the schema for details. Every clause carries meaning; there is no filler or redundancy. The structure is ideal for a tool with a rich schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description alone is not enough to fully understand invocation. However, the schema descriptions fill most gaps. The main missing context is return values and side effects, neither of which is covered by the description or an output schema. The 'See action-specific parameters' hint guides the agent to the schema, but the description does not stand alone.

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%, so every parameter is already explained in the input schema. The description adds only a pointer ('See action-specific parameters'), which is useful but does not enhance the parameters' meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific verbs 'Get/update' and 'reset' against concrete resources ('Android app permissions', 'iOS Simulator privacy services', 'iOS privacy prompts'), and scopes the platform split. This is a clear verb+resource statement that differentiates the tool from sibling tools like appium_mobile_device_control or appium_driver_settings, which do not mention 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 cases by stating the platforms and actions but does not explicitly route to an alternative or state when not to use it. It only points to 'action-specific parameters' in the schema. There are no exclusionary clauses or named alternatives among the siblings, so usage is inferred rather than directly guided.

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