appium_prepare_ios_real_device

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

Description discloses substantial behavior beyond annotations: omitting provisioningProfileUuid lists profiles, wildcard profiles use a concrete WDA bundle ID, downloads/unsigned IPA are cached per version while signing always reruns, and the tool hands off to appium_session_management. It also states prerequisites and the need to ask the user, which the readOnlyHint=false annotation alone does not convey.

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?

Dense but efficient: purpose, user-interaction flow, cache behavior, handoff, and requirements each earn their place. The most important operational detail (omit UUID to list profiles) appears immediately after the purpose.

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 complex, mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, two modes of operation, the exact next step (capabilitiesHint to appium_session_management), and cache semantics. However, it leaves the concrete shape of the returned profile list unspecified beyond 'list of available profiles' and 'recommendedForWda', so an agent lacks full return-value transparency.

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 already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow-level meaning: the omission semantics of provisioningProfileUuid, the recommendedForWda highlighting, the cache/forceRebuild interaction ('signing always reruns'), and wildcard-profile behavior. This is meaningful but not exhaustive enough to warrant 5.

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 and resource: 'Prepare signed WDA for a real iOS device.' This clearly distinguishes from the sibling prepare_ios_simulator by targeting real devices, and the rest of the description narrows the exact deliverable (signed WDA).

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?

Provides clear context: real iOS device, requires macOS, Xcode 16+, paired developer-mode device, and a two-step flow depending on provisioningProfileUuid. It does not explicitly name an alternative like prepare_ios_simulator or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of the 5-level 'explicit when-not/alternatives' bar.

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