click_mark

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful precondition context ('live identity, geometry, and screenshot-hash validation'), but does not mention the confirmation_token/request_confirmation flow for high-risk actions, which is left to the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. The core action and validation condition are stated immediately.

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, non-idempotent click tool with six parameters and no output schema, one sentence is insufficient. It lacks usage routing and parameter semantics, leaving the agent without enough textual guidance to invoke it correctly alongside the many click-related siblings.

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 only 33%. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond vaguely implying a single bound mark id; app, marks_id, mark_id, click_count, and mouse_button are not explained in text, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Click one bound Set-of-Marks id'. The Set-of-Marks framing implicitly distinguishes it from generic click siblings, but it does not explicitly name when to use this over click, left_click, or get_marks.

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 implies usage by requiring a bound Set-of-Marks id and validation, but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. The agent must infer that get_marks is a prerequisite and that generic click tools are alternatives.

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