perform_actions

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

The description adds value beyond the annotations by explaining the tool is low-level and raw, requiring careful construction of action sequences. However, it does not clarify error behavior, prerequisites (e.g., an active session), or the fact that actions may have side effects beyond destructiveness.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and immediately provides usage differentiation. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's single complex parameter and lack of output schema, the description plus schema provide adequate context for an agent to decide when to use the tool and how to structure input. It could be improved by noting the need for an existing session or error handling, but overall it is sufficient for selection and 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?

The input schema already includes a description for the sole parameter 'actions' with a link to the full W3C spec (100% coverage). The tool description does not add additional meaning or clarifications about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it performs a raw W3C WebDriver Actions sequence for pointer, key, and wheel input sources. It explicitly contrasts itself as a lower-level alternative to advanced_click, hover, scroll, and send_keys, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use only when you need multi-source synchronized input (e.g. a key held down during a pointer drag) that those higher-level tools cannot express.' It also names the alternatives that should be preferred for simpler cases.

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