Archive (.xcarchive)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does state the artifact is unsigned, targets the device SDK, uses Release, and that signing/TestFlight upload are unsupported. However, it does not disclose whether execution is asynchronous, how results or artifacts are returned, or what happens when signing is required.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the most important limitation. Every sentence adds information and there is no filler.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential context (unsigned, device SDK, Release, fleet) but omits operational details like whether the call is async or returns a job id. The sibling job_status suggests asynchronous behavior, yet the description does not mention this workflow.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema. It aligns with the configuration parameter by calling out Release, but it doesn't clarify potential ambiguities such as whether simulatorName is relevant for a device SDK archive.

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 a concrete deliverable (unsigned .xcarchive), target (device SDK), environment (fleet), and configuration (Release), so an agent can tell exactly what action this performs. It also distinguishes itself from simulator-oriented siblings like build_sim and test_sim by emphasizing device SDK.

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 this tool is for producing device archives and explicitly rules out signing/TestFlight upload ('not available yet'), but it does not explain when to choose this over build_sim/test_sim or note prerequisites such as needing a project/workspace. Usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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