appium_perform_actions

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. It does add meaningful behavioral context by labeling the tool as 'raw' and contrasting it with appium_gesture's automatic platform handling, implying this tool does not abstract platform differences. This informs the agent of potential platform-specific behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second gives usage guidance and alternatives. Critical information (the contrast with appium_gesture) is front-loaded, and every word 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?

Given the complexity of raw W3C Actions API, the description is complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it and what to expect. It covers the tool's niche, its relationship to the sibling, and the key concept of multi-touch via multiple input sources. The detailed schema handles the technical specifics, so the description fills the conceptual gap adequately.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual value beyond the schema by explaining how multiple pointer sources enable multi-touch gestures and that all sources execute in parallel synchronized tick-by-tick. This helps an agent understand the semantics of the actions array without opening the schema, though it doesn't introduce new parameter-specific details 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 opens with a specific verb ('Execute') and a specific resource ('raw W3C Actions API sequences'), and immediately distinguishes itself from appium_gesture by noting it covers gestures 'not covered by appium_gesture'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and separates it from the sibling without requiring schema inspection.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (custom multi-finger gestures, complex timing, precise control) and when to prefer the alternative ('Prefer appium_gesture for standard gestures...'). It also explains why (appium_gesture handles platform differences automatically). This is clear, actionable routing with no ambiguity.

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