appium.tap_by_accessibility_id

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden. It does disclose 'approval required', 'device mutation', and 'risk:dangerous', which are important behavioral warnings. However, it does not describe error handling, session requirements, or side effects beyond the mutation, leaving a significant portion of behavior undisclosed.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence plus risk tags. It wastes no words and is front-loaded with the risk warnings. However, it may be too minimal to convey necessary nuance, though it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 tool with several sibling tap methods, the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to prefer this over tap_by_text or tap_by_resource_id, nor does it mention that an active session is required (though the schema indicates it). Error behavior and post-conditions are absent, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently select and invoke the tool.

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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain that sessionId is required, what serverUrl is for, or what format accessibilityId should be. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 clearly states the verb 'tap' and the resource 'accessibility id', so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like tap_by_text or tap_by_resource_id, which weakens its clarity in context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention that it should be chosen when an accessibility ID is available, nor does it exclude cases where text or resource ID would be more appropriate. The description gives no context for selection.

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