studio_highlight

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: draws ring, scrolls into view, returns whether target found, and clear behavior. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., DOM modification) or safety (e.g., read-only vs destructive). The scrolling action is mentioned, which is helpful. Missing deeper behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: three sentences covering core action, scrolling, return value, and a usage guideline. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (draw ring) is front-loaded. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functionality, parameter roles, return value, and a key usage rule. It does not explain edge cases like multiple highlights or behavior when target is not found, but these are minor omissions given the simplicity.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond schema parameter descriptions: it reiterates that target can be CSS selector or visible text and explains the label option. No new semantic meaning is added for parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: drawing an accent ring around a target with an optional label. It uses specific verbs ('draw', 'scrolls', 'returns') and defines the resource ('target', 'label'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like studio_click and studio_scroll by focusing on visual callout rather than interaction.

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 provides a clear guideline: 'Clear highlights (clear=true) before navigating or zooming elsewhere.' It implies appropriate usage as a 'look here' callout, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives. This is adequate but could be more explicit.

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