openmausbot_call_cua_tool

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds valuable context by warning that some cua-driver tools 'can control apps or modify local state' and that the daemon enforces its own permission mode. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent anticipate side effects and permission-related failures.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by a concise risk warning and a clear prerequisite. Every sentence contributes new 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 dynamic generic invoker, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, that side effects vary, that daemon permissions apply, and how to discover an unknown schema. With a 100%-covered input schema and an output schema present, no critical guidance is obviously missing, though the description could slightly expand on what happens when the daemon denies permission.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents that 'name' comes from openmausbot_list_cua_tools and that 'arguments' must match the schema returned by describe_cua_tool. The description's mention to call describe_cua_tool first is useful operational guidance but does not add meaning beyond the parameter 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 opens with a specific action: 'Invoke one cua-driver tool', which clearly identifies the tool as the execution entry point rather than a listing or describing operation. The warning that 'some tools can control apps or modify local state' adds important scope and helps distinguish this invoker from siblings like openmausbot_list_cua_tools and openmausbot_describe_cua_tool.

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Call openmausbot_describe_cua_tool first when the input schema is not known', which is a clear prerequisite and usage rule. It also notes that the connected daemon applies its own permission mode, signaling that invocation may be gated. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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