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 pinning persists until explicitly released or duration elapses, survives window minimize/restore operations, and is part of a workflow with unpin_window. It doesn't mention potential side effects like window focus changes or compatibility issues, but covers the essential behavior well.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core functionality, the second provides usage context, and the third covers important caveats. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's behavior, usage patterns, and important caveats. The main gap is the lack of information about what happens on failure or what the tool returns, but given the tool's relatively simple nature, the description is quite complete.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions duration_ms elapsing as a way to auto-unpin, which is already covered in the schema description. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Make a window always-on-top') and resource ('window'), and distinguishes it from its sibling 'unpin_window' by explaining their complementary relationship. It goes beyond the name/title by specifying the pinning behavior and duration options.

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 ('Useful in run_macro sequences: pin_window → interact → unpin_window') and names the alternative tool ('unpin_window'). It also specifies when not to use it by mentioning the need to call unpin_window explicitly to release, and notes that pin state survives minimize/restore.

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