escalate_via_click

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so: it discloses atomicity, the PlayMode-only constraint, failure semantics (undo fails means no click and the gate stays intact; a missed click leaves the gate intact for retry), the delegation to simulate_click, and the needs_user return contract. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a destructive-adjacent write.

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 numbered three-step atomic sequence and the needs_user bullet list are well structured and front-load the trigger, but the opening line 'escalate_via_click tool. Write op.' is redundant filler and the overall text is longer than strictly necessary. Most sentences still earn their place, so the density is acceptable rather than wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still explains the needs_user outcome explicitly, which is the one return value an agent must act on. Combined with the PlayMode restriction, failure paths, and the undo→click→reverify pipeline, there is nothing material missing for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains undo_lua as the caller-supplied inverse operation with an example, panel_uid and ref_key/path as the real entry-point locator, assertions as matching verify_assertions' shape, and goal as the key that gates escalation. It doesn't explain mode's default 'raycast' or the accepted values, leaving one param under-documented.

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 gives a specific verb+resource framing — a command-line fallback that atomically undoes a lua op, re-enters through real simulated input, and re-verifies. It explicitly names where it delegates (simulate_click) and what it replaces (lua_eval command-line ops), so an agent can tell it apart from simulate_click or lua_eval without opening either schema.

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?

There is an explicit USE WHEN tied to a concrete trigger (verify_assertions returning escalation.should_escalate=true), a DO NOT instruction about not asking the user first, and a precise condition for when the user should be involved (needs_user=true). Alternatives and the escalation path are named outright.

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