hover_with_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the three behavioral modes (hover-only, hover-then-click, drag-and-drop), the roles of both selectors for each mode, and the return value ('Description of the performed operation'). It does not explicitly caution that clicking or dragging may trigger page changes, but the described actions inherently imply those 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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with a clear summary followed by args, tool selection, and notes. It is somewhat repetitive: the Notes section largely restates selector roles already covered in the Args and Tool selection sections. This adds minor bloat but does not obscure the information.

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 tool with three distinct modes and two interdependent selectors, the description is complete. It covers every action value, explains which selectors are needed for each mode, and states the return value. An agent has enough information to select the right action and populate the arguments correctly without needing additional 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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: selector1 and selector2 are each explained per action mode, including which parameters are required, which are unused, and what roles they play. The action parameter's enum values are also fully defined. This is excellent parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific, concrete statement of what the tool does: 'Hover over an element, optionally click another element, or drag-&-drop.' It clearly differentiates this from the sibling click tool by emphasizing hover interactions, hover-triggered menus, and drag-and-drop operations. The three explicit action modes leave no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use this tool for hover interactions, hover-triggered menus, and drag-and-drop operations.' It also gives a 'Tool selection' section mapping each scenario to the correct action value. However, it does not explicitly address when not to use it or name alternatives like the sibling 'click' tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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