desktop_invoke

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns that completion means dispatch, not verified application outcome, which is a crucial non-obvious behavior. It does not discuss side effects or reversibility, but for an arbitrary action dispatcher, the dispatch caveat is the most important behavior.

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 entire description is one tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the most valuable caveat without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main runtime source for the action and the critical completion semantics. It could mention element_id provenance and return behavior, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 schema gives only bare parameter names with 0% description coverage. The description adds real meaning to 'action' by requiring an exact value returned by inspect, but it does not clarify how 'element_id' should be obtained or formatted, leaving half the parameter semantics implicit.

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 clear verb-resource relationship: invoke an exact action name on an element identified by element_id. It distinguishes this generic dispatcher from concrete sibling tools like desktop_click or desktop_scroll, and ties the action to what inspect returns.

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 an important prerequisite: use an action name returned by inspect. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of sibling actions like desktop_click or desktop_focus_element, nor does it describe when not to use it.

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