as_ui_invoke_action

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context: it drives IDE via UI (Find Action), best-effort, and needs verification. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise with a clear structure: summary, mechanism, usage note, and structured args/returns. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (single parameter with nested object, output schema present), the description fully explains behavior, requirements, and verification process. It is complete for effective use.

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?

The input schema already fully describes each parameter with detailed descriptions. The description only adds 'Requires confirm=true' which is already in schema as default=false but with description stating it must be true. Minimal additional value.

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 it invokes IDE actions via Find Action, provides specific examples like 'Sync Project with Gradle Files', and distinguishes itself by recommending dedicated tools where available.

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?

It explicitly requires confirm=true, describes when to use (any IDE command), and advises preferring dedicated tools. It also notes it's a best-effort UI path and to verify with screenshot.

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