Clear Element Annotations

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

Annotations already convey idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds context about what is removed (badges from map_elements) and the default tab behavior, but it doesn't go beyond that. It is consistent with annotations, but adds only moderate behavioral detail.

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 compact, uses a clear structure with an Args section and an Example, and is front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple cleanup tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the mission, the parameters, the use case, and the side effects. It's complete without requiring extra details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description groups params and notes 'Defaults to the first open tab,' which is somewhat redundant but reinforces the collective selector semantics. It doesn't add significant new meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Removes the numbered overlay badges left behind by operagx_map_elements.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings, especially as the cleanup counterpart to map_elements.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use when: you're done visually grounding element ids and want a clean screenshot again.' It also explains the default behavior for tab selection. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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