settings-permissions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses TCC-store editing, Android permission mapping, platform-specific unsupported values, per-app reset semantics, and the fact that some permission changes terminate a running app. It also explains the return shape and failure behavior ('Fails if nothing could be applied').

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, then organized by platform with a final return-value paragraph. It is dense but non-repetitive; every caveat earns its place given the cross-platform complexity.

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?

This is a complex tool with no output schema, and the description supplies everything needed: valid permissions, per-platform behavior, install prerequisites, side effects on running apps, return object semantics, and the failure condition. The udid parameter remains covered by the schema, so nothing is left ambiguous.

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?

Although the schema already documents all four parameters, the description adds substantial meaning beyond it: reset's per-app rationale, the location/location-always install prerequisite, notifications/reminders platform support, and Android manifest dependency. This goes well beyond the schema's enum and pattern descriptions.

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 states the exact operation: 'Grant, deny, or reset a runtime permission for an app without navigating the system Settings UI.' It also makes the resource and scope explicit with 'Always per-app: bundleId is required' and enumerates the permission values, so an agent can clearly identify what this tool does.

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?

It explicitly frames when to invoke the tool: 'Use during test setup to pre-authorize (or explicitly deny) a service before the app asks, or reset so the permission dialog appears again on next use.' Platform-specific prerequisites such as Android manifest declarations and iOS location install requirements further guide correct usage.

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