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 and discloses key behavioral traits: it describes the action as deregistering and releasing resources, specifies effects (removes from guard evaluation, resource listings, sensor subscriptions), and mentions cleanup of active sensor subscriptions, though it lacks details on permissions 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?

The description is well-structured and concise, with three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, usage guidelines, and effects without redundancy, making it easy to 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 (a destructive operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is largely complete, covering purpose, usage, and effects, but it could benefit from mentioning the return value format or potential errors to fully compensate for the lack of structured data.

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 input schema already documents the lensId parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by implying the parameter identifies the lens to deregister, but it doesn't provide additional details like format or constraints beyond what the schema offers.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('deregister', 'release tracking resources') and identifies the resource ('perception lens'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like perception_list, perception_read, and perception_register by focusing on removal rather than listing, reading, or registering.

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 explicitly provides usage scenarios ('when a workflow is complete, when attention is identity_changed, or before re-registering a target that was closed, restarted, or replaced'), offering clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as perception_register for registration.

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