vtable_select_rows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the internal pipeline (instance refresh, checkbox column location, coordinate calculation combining iframe and canvas offsets, real mouse click), reports before/after changes, and lists automatic observations for popups and navigation changes. It does not mention potential wait times or error conditions, so it is not a perfect 5.

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, front-loaded paragraph that logically proceeds from purpose to mechanism to parameters to observations. Every sentence contributes necessary information, though it is fairly long and dense with technical detail, lacking the extreme brevity of a perfect example.

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 significant complexity (canvas rendering, coordinate math, synthetic clicks), the description covers the mechanism, parameters, and return observations. The only notable omission is a fuller explanation of iframe_selector, but the default value and the offset explanation make it usable. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 compensates by explaining row_indexes as zero-based data row indices and action with default, options, and semantics (check/uncheck/toggle). However, iframe_selector is not explicitly described, although the mention of iframe offset calculations provides partial context. This is a minor gap for a defaulted parameter.

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 opens with '勾选/取消勾选 VTable 表格中的行' (check/uncheck rows in VTable), specifying the exact action and resource. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling vtable_get_* tools which read data or analyze headers, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explains that VTable is canvas-rendered with no DOM checkboxes, implying that this tool is the correct choice for selection tasks that generic click_interact cannot handle. It details the action semantics and idempotency, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or describe when not to use this tool, stopping short of a full 5.

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