vroid_click

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

Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the focus/raise behavior, refusal condition, pointer glide timing (~0.35 s), and the requirement for fresh captures. This goes well beyond what the schema conveys and gives the agent a clear model of side effects.

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?

Three paragraphs, with the core action stated first, followed by essential behavioral caveats. It is reasonably tight—each sentence contributes (focus behavior, pointer glide, coordinate freshness). No redundant fluff, though it could be compressed slightly. The structure is logical and front-loaded.

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 the output schema exists and parameter schema covers everything, the description supplies needed behavioral context: when it refuses, how it moves the cursor, and the freshness requirement. It does not mention return values, but the output schema handles that. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, leaving no major gaps.

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 input schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds only context about coordinate freshness (stale coordinates cause misses), but does not elaborate on 'space', 'button', or 'double'. Since the schema is exhaustive, the description adds little extra but is not deficient.

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 precisely that it clicks a point in the VRoid window using the real compositor cursor, distinguishing it from drag, scroll, and other sibling actions. The verb, resource, and mechanism are explicit, so an agent can clearly understand the tool's role.

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?

Provides explicit guidance that coordinates must come from a current capture, and that it will focus/raise the VRoid window itself, refusing to click into other apps. This conveys when to use it (for interacting with VRoid) and warns against stale coordinates. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling click-like tools (though drag/scroll are self-evident).

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