qt_mouse_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about coordinate handling (optional x/y relative to top-left, default center) and typical usage scenarios. However, it does not disclose behavior in edge cases (e.g., no prior press), potential errors, or any side effects beyond the action itself, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 extremely concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage context, and coordinate behavior. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence adds necessary 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?

The tool has 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, so the description needs to cover essential context. It addresses the main use case and coordinate semantics, and since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. However, it omits details about parameter constraints (button values, modifier syntax) and edge-case behavior, making it less complete than ideal for a tool of moderate complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It does explain x/y coordinates and their optionality, which is valuable. However, it does not describe the 'button' parameter (values like left/right/middle) or 'modifiers' (how to specify key combinations), and does not explain the required session_id/element_id beyond what their names imply. Thus, parameter coverage is partial.

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 uses a specific verb ('release') and resource ('previously pressed mouse button on an element'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like qt_mouse_press and qt_mouse_click. It also explains the role in press/release pairs and drag sequences, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 states when to use this tool: to complete a press/release pair (a click) or finish a drag started with qt_mouse_press + qt_mouse_move. It provides useful sequencing context, though it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives beyond the implied counterparts.

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