desktop_action

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that non-success may have unknown effects and requires querying desktop_result before retrying, which is important safety context. However, it does not state permission requirements, which actions are destructive or reversible, or how timeout behavior affects outcomes.

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 core operation and then compactly catalogs actions and retry behavior. The telegraphic action syntax is dense but purposeful, with little wasted text. It is slightly cryptic in places, but appropriately sized overall.

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 is complex, mutating, has no annotations, and has 0% schema description coverage. Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the description does not connect task_id, action_id, or native_id to the workflow, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke the tool correctly in all cases.

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%, so the description must document six parameters. It adds substantial meaning for the action parameter by enumerating action names and argument signatures such as move(x,y) and set_text(element,text). But it leaves the required task_id, action_id, and native_id unexplained, and does not clarify timeout semantics, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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: run a permitted action on an enrolled target. It enumerates supported actions and mentions inspecting writes, which helps distinguish it from pure read tools such as desktop_screenshot and desktop_result. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling workflow tools.

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?

It gives clear invocation guidance: use the returned target ID and coordinates, inspect to verify writes, and query desktop_result before any retry. These are meaningful sequencing and retry instructions, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives beyond desktop_result.

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