simctl_set_location

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It describes the actions but omits important context such as whether the simulator must be booted, what happens if the device is invalid, or if setting location affects running apps. The description lacks transparency about side effects or error conditions.

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 with clear Args and Returns sections. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. It could be more concise by combining some parameter explanations, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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's complexity (5 parameters with conditional requirements) and lack of annotations, the description covers parameter behavior and return value adequately. However, it lacks completeness on error handling, prerequisites (e.g., device must be booted), and an explanation of the 'run' action beyond scenario requirement. An output schema exists but is not described.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'device: Device UDID, name, or 'booted' for current device') and specifying which parameters are required for each action (e.g., 'latitude: required for set action'). This adds essential semantics beyond the raw 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: 'Set or clear device location on a simulator.' It uses a specific verb ('set or clear') and resource ('device location on a simulator'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other simulator actions like booting, creating, or installing apps.

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 lists possible actions (set, clear, run) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the sibling tools are distinctly different, the description could clarify when to use each action or mention prerequisites like needing a booted device. Usage is only implied through parameter descriptions.

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