ios_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether an existing install is overwritten, whether it fails on an unconnected device, whether it depends on a prior ios_build, or what happens on launch failure. It does convey the mutate-and-launch side effect, which is the only real behavioral signal.

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, front-loaded with the action and target — efficient, but its brevity comes from omission rather than tight editing, so it under-specifies rather than being genuinely concise.

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 mutation-style tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, device targeting, or failure behavior from what is given.

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 0% for two parameters (device, launch). The description mentions 'iPhone' and 'launch' only as narrative, not as parameter semantics: it does not explain how to target a specific device, nor that launching is actually controlled by an optional boolean rather than always happening.

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: install the latest Debug build onto an iPhone and launch it. This is distinguishable from siblings like ios_build (which builds) and ios_env_check, though it never explicitly names or contrasts with them.

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 ios_build or ios_env_check, nor any prerequisite (e.g., a build must already exist, a device must be connected/paired, provisioning required). The agent must infer the whole workflow.

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