game_act

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false annotations, the description discloses concrete destructive effects ('CAN SUBMIT OR CANCEL VIRTUAL ORDERS'), idempotency/retry constraints tied to requestId, authorization expectations, and security limits (no arbitrary JS, URLs, credentials, or selectors). This adds substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 tightly written and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and immediately following with the most important safety, ordering, and idempotency constraints. Every sentence carries useful information, and the emphasis on order-changing clicks is well placed.

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 destructive batch UI tool with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description covers the critical operational concerns: authorization, action ordering, snapshot inspection, retry safety, and input restrictions. It does not explain failure behavior or how to obtain the snapshotId, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate and largely does: it implies snapshotId refers to an observed snapshot, ties requestId to safe retry semantics, and explains action ordering for fill, select, and click. It does not cover every detail (e.g., refs or action type constraints), but it adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Perform a batch of UI actions on observed game controls.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like game_navigate or game_screenshot by focusing on batched control actions, though it does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify that game_snapshot is the source of snapshotId.

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 provides clear usage context: use only within user authorization, fill/select fields together, put form-changing clicks last, inspect the returned snapshot, and never retry an uncertain order under a new requestId. It lacks explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., when to use game_navigate instead), so it stops short of a 5.

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