shoot

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

Annotations only declare the safety envelope (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds behavior beyond that: automatic redaction of emails/tokens/card numbers/password fields with solid blocks, network page loading, in-page action execution, and where artifacts land in draft vs non-draft mode. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and sibling routing come first, then spec contents, redaction, and the draft workflow. The spec sentence is a long parenthetical list, but every clause maps to a real caller decision, so little 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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return payload ('paths, warnings, legend, redactions, the capture's resolved rects and a preview'), and it covers prerequisites (network access, known selectors/text) plus the fallback path to sibling tools. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does add real value for 'spec', enumerating its contents (url or cdp_url + page_url_contains, preset, actions, marks with target) which the schema merely delegates to the ainotate://spec resource, but it says nothing extra about 'look', leaving the balance of meaning to 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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource framing — 'One call from URL to annotated image: capture_web + annotate' — and immediately states the differentiator ('marks that point at elements by "target" instead of "rect"'). An agent can distinguish it from capture_web, annotate and preview without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly gives the when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule: use shoot 'when you know the visible text, role or selector of every element; use capture_web + annotate when you need to inspect rects first.' It also prescribes the two-step draft workflow ('check the preview, then call again with draft=false').

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