resign_ipa_tool

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

The description outlines the full workflow (extract, replace, modify, sign, repackage) and mentions signing tools (ldid/codesign). However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or required permissions.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, bulleted workflow, then argument list. It is moderately sized and front-loaded, though could be slightly more concise.

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 8 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and all parameters adequately. It explains the tool's operation sufficiently for an agent to use it 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by listing all parameters with clear explanations (e.g., 'input_path: Path to .ipa or .app bundle to resign'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: resigning IPA or .app bundles with new identity and metadata. It uses specific verbs and resources, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like resign_check.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use. The description lacks context about when not to use it.

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