perform_secondary_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only 'secondary AT-SPI action' domain framing and does not explain that high-risk actions require a token from request_confirmation, nor what side effects an invoked action may have.

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 no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though that brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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, open-world tool with no output schema, the description omits critical context: how the confirmation_token/request_confirmation flow works, that element_index must come from a prior get_app_state call, and what a 'secondary action' actually is. It is not sufficient on its own for correct invocation.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax, format, or semantics beyond them. Baseline of 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 gives a specific verb (invoke) and resource (a secondary AT-SPI action exposed by an element), so an agent knows this triggers an accessibility action rather than a synthesized input event. However, 'secondary action' is jargon that is never contrasted with any primary-action sibling (click, activate_menu_item, set_value), leaving some ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this over click, activate_menu_item, or set_value, nor any precondition such as requiring a prior get_app_state call to obtain element_index. The existence of a confirmation_token parameter strongly implies a high-risk approval flow, but the description never says when that flow is required.

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