Activate a control

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent and not read-only, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it reports what NVDA said afterward and that the control need not be focused, but it does not warn that the action may be irreversible, which is the main risk for a destructive hint.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and examples, then the prerequisite. Nothing is padded or repetitive, and the key constraint (no focus needed) lands before the reader stops paying attention.

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?

With annotations, a fully documented six-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description only needs to convey purpose, prerequisite and result behavior, which it does. The only shortfall is the absence of any note on the real-world side effects of activation, which matters for a destructive-hinted tool.

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%, with rich per-parameter text covering record, settle_ms, timeout_ms, until_speech and record_within, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema is complete.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Perform a control's default action') plus concrete examples (press a button, follow a link, toggle a check box) and names the source of the target (nvda_find_objects). It implicitly separates itself from nvda_focus_object by saying focus is not required, but it never names the sibling it is not.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (the id comes from nvda_find_objects) and a useful condition (no need to focus first), which is implied usage guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over nvda_press_keys, nvda_set_value, or a focus-then-activate sequence, leaving real alternatives unaddressed.

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