simulator_erase

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description implies a destructive operation ('erase all content and settings'), which is transparent about the mutating nature of the tool. However, it doesn't mention what specific content/settings are affected (e.g., apps, data, preferences), whether the simulator must be booted or shutdown, or what the outcome is (e.g., returns to factory state).

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 concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action 'erase'. It earns its place but could benefit from slight expansion without losing conciseness.

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 destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't document return values (e.g., void vs. confirmation), error conditions (e.g., invalid deviceId, simulator not available), or preconditions (e.g., simulator shutdown required). The single-parameter schema is simple, but the critical behavioral context is missing.

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 100% with a single parameter 'deviceId' described as 'Simulator UDID'. The description 'Erase all content and settings from a simulator' adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The parameter is self-explanatory, so this is adequate but not additive.

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 'Erase all content and settings from a simulator' clearly specifies the verb 'Erase' and the resource 'simulator', using phrasing familiar to iOS developers (similar to 'Erase All Content and Settings' on a device). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like simulator_delete (which removes the simulator entirely) and simulator_shutdown (which just powers it off), but doesn't explicitly differentiate.

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 like simulator_delete or when not to use it. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the simulator must be shutdown first) or scenarios where this is appropriate. There is no mention of side effects like data loss.

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