Hover over Studio control

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

Annotations already declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds that it consumes a token (partly redundant with the schema's 'single-use observation token') and that it returns an 'after-state', which is useful since there is no output schema. However, it does not explain what the after-state contains, whether hovering may open persistent submenus that require follow-up clicks, or any rate/visibility constraints.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The second sentence ('Consumes token; returns after-state') is efficient but somewhat telegraphic, leaving 'token' and 'after-state' undefined in the description itself.

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 no output schema and moderate schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete: it omits what the after-state is, whether a hover can leave open UI needing a subsequent action (relevant given non-idempotence), and the coordinate frame for x/y. These are things an agent would need to invoke it confidently in a multi-step UI flow.

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 only 33%: observation_token is documented, but x and y have bare integer constraints. 'Hover a visible image point' adds the useful hint that x/y are coordinates within the visible image, but the description does not elaborate coordinate frame, bounds, or behavior for off-screen/invalid points.

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 states a specific verb (hover) and a specific resource (a visible image point), plus the intended outcome (tooltips/submenus). It is clearly distinguishable from click/drag siblings in practice, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'for tooltips/submenus' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus studio_click/studio_drag guidance, no precondition such as requiring a prior observation, and no when-not-to-use statement.

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