ios_set_bundle_identifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation ('Change') and the affected targets ('Runner and RunnerTests'), but it doesn't disclose side effects, whether the change is reversible, whether it modifies other project settings, or what happens if the bundle_id is invalid. The mention of 'project.pbxproj' gives some context but not enough for a mutation tool.

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 that front-loads the action and target. It earns its place, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the project_path parameter, the expected format of bundle_id, or the implications of changing it. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke this tool correctly.

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. It explains the purpose of bundle_id implicitly ('Change the iOS bundle identifier') but doesn't describe the format or constraints (e.g., reverse-DNS, allowed characters). project_path is entirely undocumented in both the schema and description, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and default behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('iOS bundle identifier (Runner and RunnerTests) in project.pbxproj'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like asc_register_bundle_id, but the target file and platform make the purpose reasonably distinct.

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 asc_register_bundle_id or signing_quick_setup. The description implies usage for changing the bundle identifier in an iOS project, but it doesn't state prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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