animation_click

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states that the tool does NOT actually click and only shows the animation effect, which is a critical non-mutating behavior. It doesn't mention side effects or blocking behavior, but for a simple visual feedback tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 highly efficient: three short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, the key non-click clarification is immediate, and the usage context is stated clearly. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, and usage adequately. It could add coordinate-system context or mention that the animation is transient, but these are minor gaps and not essential 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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning about the coordinates, color, or button style beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 the specific action: 'Show a visual click ripple animation at the specified coordinates.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from an actual click by saying 'Does NOT actually click,' which separates it from sibling tools like mouse_click and accessibility_click.

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Use for visual feedback.' It also implicitly excludes the main alternative (actual clicking) by explicitly stating the tool only shows the animation effect. However, it does not name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use conditions beyond that.

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