manage_app_lifecycle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It names mutating actions like install and uninstall but does not mention prerequisites, side effects, permission requirements, failure behavior, or what happens after an action completes. The verify screenshot option exists in the schema but is not surfaced in the description.

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 brief and front-loaded with no filler, which is good. However, it is so terse that it omits important operational context that a 5-parameter mutation tool needs, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 a tool with mutating operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain return values, verification behavior, target forms, and prerequisites. None of that is present, so an agent would need to inspect the schema and guess at important behavioral details.

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 only 40%, with deviceId and platform undocumented. The description merely repeats the action terms and adds no guidance on when target should be a package/bundle ID versus a file path, so it fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 uses concrete verbs—launch, stop, install, uninstall—and clearly identifies the resource as apps. It conveys the tool's core purpose well, but it does not differentiate it from overlapping siblings like open_deep_link or clear_app_data, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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 by the action list: an agent can infer this tool is for basic app lifecycle operations. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, which matters given siblings like open_deep_link also involve launching apps and clear_app_data affects app state.

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