ios_set_device_state

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, covering the basic safety profile. The description adds the simulator-only behavioral constraint, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects, persistence, or what happens if the tool is invoked on an unsupported device. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The primary action and the most important constraint are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content. It is an appropriately sized definition.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple optional-parameter state-change tool, and the output schema plus annotations cover many aspects. However, it leaves ambiguity about whether 'orientation' is also simulator-only, and it does not explain behavior on physical devices. These gaps make it adequate but not complete.

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%, so the input schema already documents every parameter. The description's mention of 'Appearance, location, and status bar' loosely corresponds to parameters, but it does not add details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 clear verb ('change') and a resource ('device-level state'), and it enumerates specific concerns (appearance, location, status bar) that map directly to the input schema. It is distinguishable from siblings like ios_set_permission or ios_launch_app, though it does not name them. The resource phrase is slightly generic, preventing a 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 description provides an important usage constraint: 'Appearance, location, and status bar are Simulator only.' This tells the agent not to attempt those changes on physical devices, but it does not explicitly identify when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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