iOS Simulator: Erase

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses what state is destroyed, that the operation is irreversible, and that a booted simulator is automatically shut down and rebooted because simctl refuses to erase a running device. This is valuable behavioral context the annotations alone do not provide.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler: what is wiped, why it is gated, when to use it, and how booted state is handled. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, confirmed erase operation with no meaningful output schema, the description covers the full behavioral contract: scope of destruction, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, intended use, and side effects on boot state. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema itself already documents both parameters thoroughly: device explains UDID/name behavior and IOS_SIMULATOR_ID pinning, while confirm explains the acknowledgement requirement. The tool description adds only the fact that confirm is the reason this tool is gated, so it does not need to compensate for missing parameter 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 names a specific verb and resource ('Wipe a simulator') and lists exactly what gets reset: installed apps, their data, keychain, and granted permissions. It distinguishes itself from siblings by calling itself 'the only irreversible tool here', so an agent can tell it apart from install, terminate, and power-related tools.

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?

It explicitly says to use the tool 'to test a genuine first launch', which gives a clear positive use case. It also signals caution by noting irreversibility and the confirm requirement, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or list when-not-to-use conditions.

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