app_activate_row

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this performs an action/click and that the reply reports what was done rather than what the click caused, which is meaningful side-effect context. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, what `double` changes, and what practical effects may follow, leaving significant gaps for a UI mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the key distinction and every sentence contributes to that distinction or to the read-back caveat. The prose is somewhat indirect, using an analogy and backticked sibling reference, but it remains appropriately sized. It is clear and structured without excessive repetition.

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?

The tool has four parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no annotations, so description-side guidance is important. The description explains the action semantics and read-back limitation, but it does not explain how to identify the required row or control/dialog parameters, nor what `double` toggles. Given an output schema exists, the return-value caveat is sufficient, but invocation guidance remains incomplete.

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 0% and none of the four parameters are meaningfully explained. The description references a row conceptually and invokes a click-like action, but it does not define the required `control_label`, `dialog_title`, `row` format, or what `double` does. It therefore provides almost no parameter semantics to compensate for the empty schema descriptions.

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 first sentence states a specific action and resource: invoking a row rather than selecting it. It also names the contrasting sibling `app_set_dialog_control(select_row=...)`, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema. The scope is slightly less precise than a 5 because it does not explicitly say which kind of row/panel context this applies to.

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?

The description gives a clear when-to-use contrast: use this tool to ACT on a row, whereas `app_set_dialog_control(select_row=...)` only highlights it. The document-opening analogy makes the intended outcome concrete. It stops short of 5 because it does not mention other potentially relevant UI-action siblings or any when-not-to-use conditions beyond the selection case.

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