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 clearly indicates this is a movement-only operation ('without clicking') and mentions hover effects, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like window focus changes or error conditions.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality and purpose, while the second provides crucial usage guidance. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 context about what the tool does and when to use it. However, it doesn't mention what happens after the move (e.g., does it wait for hover effects to appear?) or potential limitations. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally mention what to expect after execution.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about the tool's purpose which indirectly relates to parameter usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Move the cursor to coordinates without clicking') and resource ('cursor'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like mouse_click. It explicitly mentions the purpose for hover-only effects such as revealing tooltips or triggering hover states, providing clear differentiation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('for hover-only effects') and when not to ('Use mouse_click for click targets'), providing clear alternatives. It directly compares to the sibling tool mouse_click, offering specific guidance on tool selection.

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