appium_perform_actions

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

Annotations only indicate the tool is not read-only, and the description conveys that it executes raw action sequences with side effects. It does not add much behavioral context beyond that, such as potential device-state changes or return behavior, though the raw API framing makes the mutating nature clear.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the routing instruction placed clearly at the end. Every sentence earns its place.

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 raw API tool, the description plus a fully documented schema gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The main gap is that it does not describe what kind of result or acknowledgement the raw API returns, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor omission.

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 thorough documentation for input sources, action types, coordinates, durations, and origin. The description contributes gesture-level context but does not need to explain individual parameters because the schema already carries the full semantic load; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opening clause states a specific verb and resource ('Execute raw W3C Actions API sequences') and immediately differentiates it from appium_gesture. Concrete use cases are listed, so an agent can clearly tell this is for advanced, custom multi-touch gestures rather than standard ones.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: custom multi-finger gestures, complex timing sequences, or precise control over touch points. It also explicitly tells the agent to prefer appium_gesture for standard gestures because it handles platform differences automatically.

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