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 mentions 'free its event buffer', hinting at resource cleanup, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, error conditions, or what happens to pending events. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return value, error handling, or side effects beyond buffer freeing, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively in context.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'subscriptionId' documented as 'ID returned from events_subscribe'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format or validation details, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Stop a subscription') and the resource ('event buffer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like events_list or events_poll, which have different purposes but are related to event management.

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 implies usage by referencing 'subscriptionId returned from events_subscribe', suggesting it should be used after subscribing. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to unsubscribe vs. other event-related tools) or any prerequisites beyond the ID.

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