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 mutation operation (removing a property), but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens if the window isn't pinned. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth.

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 short sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states the core functionality, the second provides important contextual relationship. There's zero wasted verbiage and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It explains what the tool does and its relationship to a sibling tool, but doesn't address potential failure modes, return values, or system implications. Given the simplicity of the operation, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'title' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the structured schema, which meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Remove always-on-top') on a specific resource ('a window'), and explicitly distinguishes it from its sibling 'pin_window' by stating it 'Reverses pin_window.' This provides perfect clarity about what the tool does and how it relates to alternatives.

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 clear context by stating it 'Reverses pin_window,' which implies when to use this tool (to undo a previous pin operation). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative unpinning methods if they exist, which prevents a perfect score.

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