studio_highlight

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: scrolling into view, overlaying rings, stacking until cleared. Also describes return values for success and failure, and advises retrying with studio_screenshot. No contradictions.

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 a single paragraph with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence is informative and necessary—no fluff. It efficiently covers behavior, usage, and return values.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters without nesting, the description covers all needed details: side effects, error handling, best practices, and parameter semantics. No apparent gaps.

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 already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining the interaction between clear and other parameters, giving example values like '.metric-card' or 'Monthly revenue', and clarifying that label and eyebrow are optional. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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?

Clearly defines the tool as drawing an accent ring around a target (CSS selector or visible text) with an optional label card. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like studio_screenshot or studio_click by explicitly calling it a 'look here' callout.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to call clear=true before navigation, zoom, or changing target to avoid stale rings. Mentions retrying with studio_screenshot on error. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like studio_cancel for clearing rings, nor state when not to use this tool beyond the clear advice.

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