ios_create_ipa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains that IPA assembly runs entirely on the Mac via xcrun, states the prerequisite codesigning step, specifies ipa_type semantics, and notes the timeout behavior. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name.

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 compact and well organized, with the core purpose stated first and a clean Args list afterward. Every sentence earns its place, covering prerequisites, execution context, and all parameters without fluff.

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 complexity, eight parameters, zero annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it provides prerequisites, remote-execution context, parameter semantics, and defaults. It does not describe output details, but the output schema covers that responsibility. Minor edge cases like whether out_path directory creation or certificate matching validation are not discussed, but not essential for basic correct use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: every parameter is explained, including defaults for ipa_type and timeout and the optional studio_root. Each argument's role in the packaging workflow is clear enough for correct invocation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Package a signed .app into an .ipa on the remote Mac (paclient -i).' It states the exact artifact transformation and platform, and clearly distinguishes this tool from related siblings like ios_codesign and ios_install_ipa. An agent can understand what the tool does and why it exists without reading the schema.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance: the .app must be codesigned first via ios_codesign, and the provisioning profile must exist and match the certificate and bundle ID. It clearly implies the correct sequencing among siblings, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives for installing or signing specifically.

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