dismiss_keyboard

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 the conditional no-op semantics ('if visible'), which tells the agent it won't error on a keyboard-free screen, but says nothing about state side effects, blocking behavior, or failure modes.

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 short sentence with the action and the condition front-loaded, and zero wasted 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the single parameter is fully covered by the schema. For a trivial one-argument UI action the description is nearly sufficient; only explicit no-op/error behavior is missing.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains device_id as a Simulator UDID. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (dismiss) and resource (on-screen keyboard) that clearly distinguishes it from the alert-related siblings (dismiss_alert, accept_alert) and the generic input siblings. It stops short of naming or contrasting any alternative tool, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 qualifier 'if visible' implies the tool is safe to call unconditionally and is only meaningful when a keyboard is on screen, which is useful implied usage. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other recovery actions or what to do if it fails.

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