ios.install_app

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

The description embeds tags [approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous] that disclose the mutative and risky nature of the operation, and the need for approval. Since no annotations are provided, this disclosure is essential and earns credit. However, it does not elaborate on side effects like overwriting an existing app, or whether the operation requires a specific simulator state. The disclosure is useful but not comprehensive.

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 concise sentence with risk tags front-loaded. It wastes no words and gets to the point immediately. However, it is so brief that it leaves out crucial usage and parameter details, but that is more a completeness issue than a structure issue.

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 tool that mutates a device and requires approval, the description lacks critical context: it does not mention the need for the simulator to be booted, any installation prerequisites, or what happens on failure. It also does not explain the 'device' parameter or offer alternative tools. Given the tool's simplicity, a bit more guidance would make it 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify the parameters. The phrase 'an .app bundle' implicitly explains appPath, but the description does not mention the 'device' parameter at all. The agent is left to guess that 'device' refers to a simulator identifier. This partial clarification is insufficient for a two-parameter tool with no schema documentation.

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 clearly states the action: install an .app bundle on an iOS simulator. This distinguishes it from the generic device.install_app sibling by specifying the platform and simulator context. The verb 'install' and resource 'iOS simulator' are specific and unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ios.launch_app or device.install_app. It does not mention prerequisites such as the simulator needing to be booted, nor does it state whether this tool should be preferred over other installation methods. The agent is left to infer usage context from the sibling list alone.

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