Scroll within Studio

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the state-changing profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the single-use observation token is consumed and an after-state is returned, plus direction semantics for positive delta. It does not explain what happens with an expired/stale token, which is the main operational risk.

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?

Four compact clauses, action first, with direction semantics and token cost front-loaded. Dense but readable; nothing is wasted, though the clauses are telegraphic enough to border on under-specification.

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?

Six parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema mean the description carries a lot of weight. It covers token consumption and after-state but leaves axis semantics, coordinate frame (viewport vs. window-relative), and token freshness failure modes unexplained for a state-changing interaction 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 coverage is only 17% (only observation_token documented), so the description must compensate and does so partially: it explains x/y as an optional visible image point, relates delta to down/right movement, and ties modifiers to zoom. The axis parameter (vertical/horizontal default) and the -1200..1200 delta bounds are left entirely to the schema.

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?

"Wheel at an optional visible image point" states a concrete verb (scroll/wheel) and target, and the title confirms the Studio surface. It is distinguishable from point-click or key-press siblings, but the description never names an alternative or says what content is scrolled (window vs. pane), which would have made it a 5.

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 no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer that this is for scrolling rather than using studio_press_key (PageDown) or studio_drag, and nothing says when zoom-via-modifiers is appropriate.

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