cyd_touch_calibrate_start

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool is interactive, displays the first crosshair, requires tapping, and saves a corrected mapping. However, it does not mention whether this is reversible, what happens after the third tap, or whether it changes persisted device settings, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the crucial machine-specific and action-level context. The only minor issue is the cryptic 'Action, L3' phrase, which adds some ambiguity but does not create redundancy.

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?

The description conveys the core three-step calibration flow and the required user interaction, which is adequate for a no-parameter tool. However, it omits details such as cancellation behavior, what happens after the third crosshair, and whether a return value or confirmation is provided, which an agent might need for full context.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema has no properties, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 identifies the tool as a machine-specific cyd action that starts touch calibration by showing the first of three crosshairs. The verb 'show' and the calibration context distinguish it from generic tap or settings tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from a sibling by name.

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 implies when to use it: during a three-step touch-calibration process on cyd, with the user instructed to tap each crosshair. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but no sibling appears to be a calibration tool, so the context is reasonably clear.

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