desktop-touch-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the CDP requirement, the specific use case for framework-controlled inputs, limitations with rich-text editors, and what the response contains ('actual in response shows what the element's value property reads after fill'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions or performance characteristics.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance, the third gives prerequisites and limitations, and the fourth explains response verification. While efficient, the final sentence about response verification could be slightly more concise.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the specific use case, prerequisites, limitations, and response verification. However, without an output schema, it doesn't fully describe the return structure beyond mentioning the 'actual' value property check.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add significant parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions 'selector' indirectly through the recommendation to use browser_get_interactive or browser_find_element first, but this is usage guidance rather than parameter 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 the specific action ('fill a form input with a value via CDP') and the target resource ('React/Vue/Svelte controlled inputs'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from browser_eval by explaining it's for cases where JS value assignment doesn't update framework state, making the purpose highly specific and differentiated from siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('when setting a controlled input's value via JS does not update the framework state'), when not to use it ('Does not work on contenteditable rich-text editors'), and alternatives ('use browser_get_interactive or browser_find_element first to obtain a stable selector', 'use keyboard_type for those'). It also mentions prerequisites ('Requires browser_connect').

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