Re-rendered Cursor

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the write profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail (hides when idle, click ripples, optional spotlight) but largely mirrors schema parameters (clicks, spotlight, hideAfterSec) and says nothing about the output file/dry-run/overwrite semantics, which only the schema carries.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action, no wasted words. The nested clause "from the event log of a start_recording cursor:\"events\" recording" is syntactically awkward and needs re-reading, costing it the top score.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description needn't explain returns or per-param syntax. It supplies the crucial input-dependency context; the only gap is that destructive/write-file behavior is delegated entirely to annotations and the overwrite/dryRun params.

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 100% with all 10 parameters documented (size scaling factor, smoothing 0–1, hideAfterSec semantics, dryRun, overwrite). The description adds only a gloss on smoothing/scale/ripples/spotlight that the schema already specifies, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Draw a smoothed, scaled cursor") and names the exact input it applies to: the event log of a start_recording cursor:"events" recording. This differentiates it from keystroke_overlay/callout overlays by identifying the required recording mode, though it never names a sibling alternative directly.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use — the recording must have no OS cursor baked in and must be cursor:"events" — so an agent knows which recordings this applies to. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use rules or naming a fallback tool when those conditions fail.

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