reset_simulator

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

The description explicitly discloses the destructive nature of the operation by stating it erases 'all content and settings.' This is the critical behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly mention that the reset is irreversible, that confirmation is required (though schema covers it), or what happens to running apps. Still, the core risk is well conveyed.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and defines the scope with 'all content and settings,' making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential behavior. It omits mention of the confirm parameter (handled by schema) and does not describe return values, but for this tool the description is largely adequate. It could be enhanced by explicitly noting that the operation is irreversible, but the current text is sufficient.

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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (udid and confirm, with confirm explicitly required to be true). The description adds no additional paramter-specific semantics, providing no further detail beyond what the schema contains. Thus a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Reset' with a direct object 'a simulator' and elaborates 'by erasing all content and settings,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like boot_simulator or shutdown_simulator which do not erase data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is destructive and should be used sparingly, nor does it reference alternative reset options or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without contextual placement among sibling tools.

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