long_press_element

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add non-obvious behavioral detail: a random point inside the bounds is used, with edge margin excluded, and hints at the typical effect (context menus). However, it omits permissions, side effects, failure behavior, and verification semantics, so the disclosure is only partial.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and an immediately useful example. There is no filler, and the key implementation detail is placed early.

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 6-parameter UI action tool with full schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description covers core purpose and selection strategy. It does not mention the verification behavior available in the schema, which is a notable omission when no annotations are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameter meanings are already documented in the schema. The description adds only point-selection and edge-exclusion context, which slightly reinforces bounds/margin semantics but does not go beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific action (long-presses) and target (element identified by bounds), and clarifies how the press point is chosen. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from the coordinate-based long_press sibling, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishable.

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 an example use case ('icon long-press menus') but no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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