visual_set_position

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool sets position and size, but fails to describe side effects, whether it overwrites existing values, the effect of the dryRun parameter, or any required permissions. The minimal description does not adequately inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 very short and to the point, but it sacrifices essential details for brevity. While it is concise, it is under-specified and could benefit from a more structured format that includes parameter roles and usage hints.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., visual must exist on the given page), or the behavior when parameters are invalid. For a tool with 5 parameters, this is inadequate.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema field names, leaving agents to guess at parameter details like the units of x, y, width, height, or the effect of dryRun. 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 'Set a visual position and size' clearly states the tool's action (set) and resource (visual position and size). It clarifies that both position and size are included, which distinguishes it from other visual_set_* siblings. However, it closely mirrors the tool name, lacking additional context that would fully differentiate it from other position-related tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like visual_set_filter or visual_set_format. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as the visual needing to exist, or situations where this tool should not be used. The description offers no usage context.

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