Point at components

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

Annotations already cover idempotency, non-destructiveness, and that this is not a plain read. The description adds genuine behavioral context: the effect lands on the candidate's board (a side effect on another user's view) and can optionally move their viewport. However, it says nothing about persistence — whether the glow is momentary, tied to 'seconds', or how to remove it — which matters for a tool that mutates a shared surface.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core effect and followed by the optional viewport behavior. No filler.

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?

No output schema and only three parameters, but the description leaves out the duration semantics of 'seconds' and whether the glow persists after the call, so an agent cannot fully predict the tool's effect on the candidate's board.

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 only 33%: only 'targets' is documented ('Element ids or labels'). The description explains 'focus' implicitly via 'scroll/zoom their view to them', but 'seconds' (1-20) is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, so its meaning — presumably highlight duration — is left entirely to inference.

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 — making components glow on the candidate's board — with a concrete example use case. An agent can tell this is a presentational 'point at' action, distinct from siblings like annotate or draw_on_board, though it never names those alternatives.

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 parenthetical '(e.g. while asking about them)' implies when to use it, but no explicit when-not, no prerequisites, and no comparison to draw_on_board / annotate / open_board. The agent must infer the boundary between highlighting and drawing.

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