aua_swipe

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/non-repeatable nature is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: "No automatic retries" warns the agent it must re-issue failed swipes, and the direction note disambiguates finger-motion vs content-motion. It still omits what a swipe can destroy or what happens on a partial/no-op gesture.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no redundant wording. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ("observe for next-step context") costs a little clarity but nothing is wasted.

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 7-parameter, mutation-capable, non-idempotent gesture tool with an optional observation/observation_id loop and a wait condition, the description is too thin. The relationship between observe and observation_id, and the role of wait_for after a swipe, are never explained, and there is no output schema to compensate.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only covers two: direction (finger motion, up reveals later rows) and region (display-pixel units). It says nothing about observe, observation_id, wait_for, duration or variation, leaving the most consequential parameters undocumented.

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 concrete verb and gesture ("Perform one swipe") and clarifies what direction means in terms of finger motion. It distinguishes a swipe from a tap or drag implicitly through the gesture name, but never contrasts it with siblings like aua_drag or aua_scroll_until.

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?

"Use display-pixel region if needed" and "observe for next-step context" give fragments of conditional guidance, but there is no statement of when this tool should be chosen over aua_scroll_until, aua_drag, or repeated aua_tap. The agent must infer the choice with no exclusions.

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