console_mouse_buttons

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about the critical behavior of a state-setter: whether the button stays held across calls and that it must be reset to false to release, which is exactly the failure mode an agent would hit during a drag.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is the right shape for a low-complexity setter. It is perhaps too terse for the behavioral gaps, but nothing in it 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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no prose. What remains missing — button-state persistence/release semantics and the vm_name parameter — is real but modest against annotations that already signal a non-idempotent mutating operation.

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; it names three of the four parameters (left/right/middle) but not vm_name, and it never explains that true means "held down" versus false meaning "released", nor mentions the defaults. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb ("Set") and a specific resource ("explicit left, right, and middle synthetic-mouse button states"), and the phrase "for drag operations" hints at its niche versus console_click and console_mouse_move. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

"For drag operations" implies when to reach for this over console_click (discrete click) or console_mouse_move (positioning only), but no alternative is named and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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