highlight_object

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

Annotations declare this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent write; the description adds meaningful context beyond them by stating the effect is a 'temporary visual aid' that leaves 'nothing to put in code'. Toggling visibility is consistent with idempotentHint=false, so nothing is contradicted. It stops short of saying whether the highlight persists across frames or must be cleared.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with a bracketed category tag first and the core action second. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 4-optional-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description plus annotations and a fully documented schema give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as how name and uuid interact and what, if anything, is returned.

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 coverage is 100%, so mode, name, uuid and enabled are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the wireframe/visibility modes restates the mode enum but adds no format, precedence, or name-vs-uuid guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (highlight/toggle) and resource (object) plus the two visual modes it supports, so an agent knows it is a browser-visual pointing tool. It doesn't explicitly name the overlapping siblings (toggle_wireframe, overlay_selected, bounding_boxes), so differentiation is only partial.

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 '[DEBUG VISUAL]' tag and 'Nothing to put in code' imply this is for temporary, non-persistent pointing rather than scene mutation, which is useful context. However, it never says when to prefer this over toggle_wireframe or overlay_selected, nor any prerequisites.

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