device_install_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds a meaningful prerequisite (the .ipa must be signed with an ad-hoc or development profile that includes the device), which is beyond the name alone. However, it does not disclose failure modes, side effects, whether an existing app is overwritten, or any permissions needed—leaving notable behavioral gaps.

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, tightly written sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the verb and direct object, and every phrase adds relevant information (signed, ad-hoc/development, includes this device, connected iPhone).

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?

Given the tool is a mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters, the description is under-specified. It does not explain the udid parameter, nor does it offer guidance on how to target a specific device when multiple are connected. The signing requirement is helpful, but the overall context is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It clarifies ipa_path by referencing 'a signed .ipa' but says nothing about the udid parameter, which is critical for selecting among multiple connected devices and is not self-evident from the schema (null default). This is a significant omission.

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 ('Install') and resource ('a signed .ipa ... on a connected iPhone'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like device_uninstall_app (uninstall) and mac_install_simulator_app (simulator target). The target platform and installation artifact are 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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool (installing an .ipa on a physical, connected iPhone) but does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use mac_install_simulator_app for simulators' or 'use device_uninstall_app to remove an app.' The usage context is forward but not fully explicit.

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