app_privacy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether reset reverts to default state, if granting an already granted permission is idempotent), permissions required to invoke the tool, or any impact on app state. The only behavioral hint is that bundleId is required for grant/revoke, which is insufficient.

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 13-word sentence, achieving high conciseness with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or separate sentences for different aspects (e.g., required arguments, return behavior), which could improve scannability without adding significant length.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context such as prerequisites (e.g., simulator must be booted, app must be installed), expected output (e.g., success message or error), and behavior of the 'reset' action. The current description is too minimal for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without relying heavily on the schema alone.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds one piece of extra semantic value: noting that bundleId is 'required for grant/revoke'. This clarifies parameter usage beyond the schema, but otherwise the description does not elaborate on value formats or constraints.

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 a specific verb-resource combination ('Grant, revoke, or reset privacy permissions') and clearly states the target context ('for an app on a simulator'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like location_set and push_notification, which operate on different resource types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., push_notification for notifications, location_set for location overrides). It also omits prerequisites such as the simulator needing to be booted or the app must be installed.

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