ios_install_ipa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses prerequisites and constraints: the device must be physically connected, trusted, and listed by xcrun devicectl; it wraps a specific command (paclient -ii); and it includes a timeout after which the process is killed. It does not describe overwrite behavior or signing requirements, but for an install command the main behavior is clear.

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 the core action and resource, followed by prerequisites aids and an arg list. It is concise overall, but the reference to 'tracked under issue #5 (sim_* tools)' adds internal project noise that is not useful for an AI agent selecting the tool.

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 this moderately complex 5-parameter tool with no annotationscoal, the description is complete: it explains the command wrapper, prerequisites, how to find a UDID, the parameter semantics, the simulator exclusion, and the timeout behavior. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to document return values.

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%, and the description compensates by listing all five parameters with meanings: profile as a connection profile name, ipa_path as a remote Mac path, device_udid as the target UDID, timeout as seconds before being killed, and studio_root as optional. Some entries, especially 'profile', are somewhat terse, but the list meaningfully adds beyond the bare property names.

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 a specific verb ('Install'), a specific resource ('.ipa'), and a specific target ('iOS device attached to the Mac'), along with the underlying command 'paclient -ii'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from simulator installation, so an agent can clearly tell it apart from sim_install.

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 explicitly says this is for device installation, not simulator installation, and notes that simulator installation requires 'xcrun simctl install', which 'paclient does NOT wrap'. It also gives preconditions (device physically connected, trusted, listed by devicectl), giving the agent concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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