desktop_set_checked

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden and it does add a behavioral guarantee: it will not blindly toggle when the desired state is already set. It stops short of describing failures, visibility requirements, or side effects, but the core state-setting behavior is 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?

One sentence front-loads the main action and adds the toggle-avoidance caveat in a second clause. No filler or redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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 two-parameter setter this is mostly complete, covering target element, desired state, and idempotence. It lacks guidance on error conditions, visibility/availability prerequisites, and what the tool returns, but no output schema makes return-value detail optional.

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 no parameter descriptions, but 'requested state' maps checked to a target boolean value and 'checkable control' implies the element_id refers to a control capable of being checked. It does not explain element_id resolution, but the two parameters are simple enough that the added context is meaningful.

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 names a specific verb ('set') and resource ('a checkable control') and explicitly frames the action as bringing the control to a requested state. This differentiates it from sibling setters like desktop_set_expanded or desktop_set_value.

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?

It implies this tool is for checkable controls and warns against blind toggling when the control already matches, which is a condition for calling it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer desktop_set_expanded or desktop_set_value.

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