hold

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and delivers essentially nothing. It does not say whether the call blocks, how long the hold lasts by default, what ms/settle/timeout/stable_for/wait_change do or default to, or what it returns — all critical for a timing-sensitive gesture in an automation loop.

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?

Four words with no waste, but the brevity here is under-specification, not conciseness. There is no front-loaded purpose statement covering target, duration, or blocking behavior, so nothing useful is established before the reader runs out of text.

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?

A 7-parameter timing-sensitive gesture with no annotations and no output schema needs a description to explain duration control, settling semantics, and return behavior. The description covers none of it, leaving the four most cryptic parameters completely opaque.

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 coverage is 43%, and the description explains zero parameters. Four parameters (ms, timeout, stable_for, wait_change) have no schema description and no description text, so an agent cannot tell from either source how to control hold duration or post-gesture settling; only 'settle' and the 0–1 bounds on x/y are documented anywhere.

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?

"Touch and hold" names a recognizable touchscreen long-press gesture, which does distinguish it from tap/swipe in the sibling list. But it only restates the tool name with one added word and says nothing about the target (normalized x/y coordinates) or the duration, so the purpose stays at the level of a gesture label.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: nothing about choosing hold over tap, swipe, tap_px, or wait_for, and no mention of whether it is for long-press menus versus steady contact. The agent must infer the selection rule purely from the one-word tool name.

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