ios_handle_alert

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds important behavioral context by explaining that accepting can 'grant a permission or confirm a deletion nobody wanted.' This warns the agent about real consequences and complements the structured annotation without contradicting it.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core action front-loaded, and the second provides a high-value caution that directly affects agent behavior. Every phrase earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description is largely complete. It conveys the essential decision-making context and warns of risks. A minor gap is not explicitly stating the trigger condition ('when an alert appears'), but that is reasonably inferred from the tool name and purpose.

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%: action is documented as 'accept' or 'dismiss' and button as the exact label when several exist. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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?

The description opens with 'Answer a system alert,' a specific verb plus resource that immediately identifies what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like ios_tap, ios_launch_app, or ios_set_permission, which handle different actions. The warning about accepting blindly reinforces the purpose without obscuring it.

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 instruction to 'read the alert text before choosing' implies the appropriate moment to use this tool: when a system alert appears and a decision is needed. It offers no explicit alternative or exclusion, but none of the sibling tools are natural alternatives for answering alerts, so the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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