appium.tap_coordinates

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

The description includes inline tags '[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous]' which disclose that this is a dangerous, mutating operation requiring approval. However, these tags are not formal annotations, and the description does not explain what 'dangerous' means in practice (e.g., could tap unintended UI elements, cause navigation, or trigger irreversible actions). It also doesn't mention that coordinates are relative to the device screen and may vary by resolution. The tags add some transparency, but the description could go further.

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 a single sentence plus a short constraint, which is concise and front-loaded. The inline tags add useful context without bloating the text. It loses one point because the parameter semantics gap means the description is too short to be fully self-sufficient.

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 dangerous mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. An agent needs to know the coordinate system, units, and potential side effects to use this safely. The sibling list shows many semantic alternatives, and the description correctly routes away from them, but it doesn't provide enough operational detail for a tool that could cause harmful taps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. The description only mentions 'screen coordinates' but does not explain that x and y are pixel coordinates, what coordinate system is used (e.g., top-left origin), or what serverUrl and sessionId are for. With 4 parameters and zero schema coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Tap screen coordinates') and adds a clear constraint ('Use only when semantic locators are unavailable'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like appium.tap_by_text, appium.tap_by_accessibility_id, and appium.tap_by_resource_id, which are semantic locator-based alternatives. It could be slightly clearer that this is a raw coordinate tap on the Appium session, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 says 'Use only when semantic locators are unavailable,' which is a direct usage guideline. It implies that semantic locator tools (tap_by_text, tap_by_accessibility_id, tap_by_resource_id) should be preferred, and this tool is a fallback. This is strong guidance for an agent deciding between siblings.

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