ios_press_button

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the core behavioral profile is known. The description adds no extra behavioral context such as likely side effects of pressing home or siri, but it is consistent with the annotations and therefore not misleading.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It clearly front-loads the core action, though it is arguably too sparse to fully stand alone without the schema.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a complete input schema, output schema, and relevant annotations, the one-sentence description covers the essential action. The only significant gap is usage guidance, which is already captured under usage_guidelines.

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 100%, fully documenting accepted values for 'name' and the purpose of 'idem_key'. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, 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 uses a specific verb ('Press') and a specific resource ('hardware button or keyboard key'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It inherently distinguishes itself from sibling touch-based tools like ios_tap, ios_type, and ios_swipe.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ios_tap or ios_type. There are no exclusions, no context, and no mention of scenarios where pressing a hardware button is preferable.

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