optimize_by_usage

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two valuable traits: the usage-data fallback chain (screen_time, then device memory reports) and the preservation guarantees (widgets keep pages, dock and App Library untouched). However, it never states whether the reorganization is reversible, whether it requires permissions, or what happens to apps on later pages that fall out of use.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the primary effect and then adds the data-source and preservation clauses. It is dense but each clause carries distinct information; the elliptical opening is the only structural blemish.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers the core placement and preservation semantics well. The remaining gap is the undocumented keep_first_page parameter, which leaves the call shape ambiguous for a mutation-style tool with no annotations to fall back on.

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 single parameter keep_first_page has zero schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or explains what 'first page' means in this context. An agent must guess whether this pins the current first page in place or merely reserves it during the shuffle.

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 effect on a specific resource: most-used apps and folders are placed on the earliest pages, and most-used apps onto each folder's first page. That clearly separates it from sort_alphabetically, sort_by_color, and arrange. The only weakness is the elided verb in the opening clause, which makes it read like a fragment rather than an explicit 'rearrange' action.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is the ordering tool driven by usage data, implicitly contrasted against the alphabetical and color sibling tools. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool, no prerequisites, and no note about reverting the change despite undo/redo siblings existing.

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