Register device

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the irreversible cost: each call consumes one of the account's limited yearly device slots, and disabling the device does not free it until membership renewal. That, plus the profile-regeneration consequence, gives an agent everything needed to judge risk on a destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent call.

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 short sentences: purpose first, then downstream effect, then cost/irreversibility. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description could say what is returned (a device record) and how errors like an already-registered UDID or exhausted slot surface. Otherwise coverage of safety, cost, and follow-up work is strong for a 3-param mutation.

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% — name, udid, and platform are all documented with an enum explanation in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., duplicate-UDID behavior), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Registers a device UDID') and narrows scope to development and ad hoc builds, which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like list_devices. It never names a sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the alternative rather than being routed.

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 note that provisioning profiles must be regenerated afterward implies the workflow context in which this tool is used, but there is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'use list_devices instead if…' guidance. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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