iOS Simulator: Uninstall

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: what exactly is destroyed (documents, databases, preferences, 'nothing brings them back'), and the non-obvious behavioral quirk that uninstalling a missing app still succeeds, so success is not proof of prior presence. That last detail is a real edge case an agent could otherwise misinterpret.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: destruction scope, cold-start alternative, narrower vs erase, and the success-flag caveat. Front-loaded with the destructive consequence rather than burying it behind pleasantries.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the critical missing semantics: what is destroyed, alternatives for different intents, and the false-success edge case. Annotations cover the safety flag, schema covers parameters, and the description covers behavior and routing — nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly (device omitting behavior, confirm must be true, bundle_id pattern and examples). The description adds no parameter syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully carries 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?

States a specific verb+resource (remove an app from the simulator) and immediately differentiates scope ('with its data container', narrower than erase). It explicitly names sibling tools (terminate, erase) with their distinguishing scope, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not: 'to get back to a cold start while keeping the data, use ios_simulator_terminate' and 'to test a genuine first launch of one app, this is narrower than ios_simulator_erase, which wipes every app'. This is direct routing to alternatives with conditions.

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