humanize_on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It reveals actual behavioral traits (Bezier paths, gaussian dwell, sine scrolling) and the session scoping. It does not disclose persistence or reversibility details, but for a simple toggle the effect is reasonably aired.

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?

Single sentence is front-loaded with the action and scope, with specific details cleanly parenthesized. No wasted words; efficiently structured.

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 simple, zero-required-argument toggle with no output and no annotations, the description provides enough to know the purpose, scope, and a few implementation details. It could mention how it interacts with the 'mouse' tool or how to disable it, but these are minor given the low 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?

The schema has 100% coverage for both optional parameters ('lease' and 'session'), including usage guidance for stateful steps. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving the burden to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 ('Enable'), a resource ('humanlike mouse'), and concrete behavioral modifiers (Bezier paths, gaussian dwell, sin scroll). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools 'humanize_off' and 'humanize_status' by specifying the enabling action.

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 the usage context ('for current session') but gives no explicit guidance about when to avoid it or which sibling to use instead. It does not mention that 'humanize_off' should be used to disable the mode or that 'humanize_status' could verify state, so the guidance remains implicit.

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