ahk-mcp

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, which the description aligns with by implying file modification. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it automatically detects files, sets them active, helps determine editing approach, and mentions a dry-run preview feature. However, it doesn't detail potential side effects like backup behavior or error handling.

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?

Front-loaded with key usage rules, followed by a note about active file. Sentences are purposeful, but the emoji and formatting slightly reduce efficiency. It could be more streamlined by integrating the active file note into the main text.

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 complexity (file editing with destructive potential) and rich schema/annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers usage context, behavioral hints, and references related tools. Lacks output details, but no output schema exists, so this is acceptable. Could improve by clarifying differences from sibling editing tools.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add specific details about parameters beyond implying usage of filePath and changes. It mentions dry-run indirectly ('Preview changes'), but this is covered in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most semantics.

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 this is the 'PRIMARY FILE EDITING TOOL' for AutoHotkey (.ahk) files, specifying it's for modifying files when a path is provided. It distinguishes from generating code blocks but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling editing tools like AHK_File_Edit or AHK_File_Edit_Small, which would require a 5.

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?

Provides explicit usage instructions: 'Use this IMMEDIATELY when user mentions a .ahk file path and wants to modify it' and 'ALWAYS use this instead of generating code blocks when a file path is provided.' It also references AHK_File_Active for selecting a target, giving clear context and alternatives.

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