Override status bar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose platform-specific mechanisms (simctl, SystemUI demo mode) and what gets overridden (time, battery, signal). However, it does not mention side effects, persistence, or whether partial settings reset other values, which are important behavioral traits.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes useful platform details without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence contributes value.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It fails to address important context such as what happens when optional parameters are omitted, whether changes are temporary or persistent, and which parameters apply to which platforms. The description gives a high-level overview but leaves a lot of ambiguity.

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 description coverage is only 29%, so the description needed to compensate. It groups parameters conceptually (time, battery, signal) which adds meaning beyond the schema, but it does not elaborate on individual parameters like operator_name or the battery_state enum. The platform hints help infer usage but are not parameter-specific.

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 function: 'Override the status bar (time, battery, signal) for clean screenshots.' It uses a specific verb ('override') and resource ('status bar'), and the purpose (clean screenshots) is explicit. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_appearance or take_screenshot.

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 provides context that this is for clean screenshots, implying when it should be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the platform-specific hints (iOS vs Android) give additional usage context.

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