ios_type

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail: it focuses the field first when a ref or target is given. This goes beyond the structured annotations and aligns with them.

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 sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the focusing condition is stated efficiently.

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?

With a complete input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description does not need to repeat parameter or return details. The only notable gap is that the password-related routing to ios_type_secret is not surfaced in the tool description itself, but it is present in the schema.

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 is 3. The description adds value by specifying that focusing happens first when a ref or target is provided, which describes the interaction between those parameters. Other parameter details are already well documented in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Type into a field', and adds the focusing behavior when a ref or target is given. This makes the tool's basic purpose clear. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ios_type_secret or ios_set_value within the description itself.

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 use for typing into a field and clarifies the ref/target focusing condition, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over ios_type_secret (for passwords) or ios_set_value. The password guidance appears only in a parameter description, not in the tool description.

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