System Set Dock Show Recents

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses no behavioral traits whatsoever. The annotations only carry openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint — there is no readOnlyHint — yet the description never says whether this mutates persistent system state, whether it requires permissions, or what the side effects of enabling/disabling are. It adds no context beyond what the annotations already provide.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence is a boilerplate delegation notice that could apply verbatim to any Apple-domain tool; it does not earn its place and could easily be replaced with a same-length functional description.

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 one-parameter system-setting setter, an agent needs at minimum to know what Dock behavior 'show recents' refers to and what true/false does. Even with an output schema present, the description is a generic delegation notice with no behavioral, parameter, or selection context, so it is entirely inadequate for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required boolean 'enabled', but it says nothing about what 'enabled' means, its default, or its effect on the Dock. The parameter title 'Enabeled' and the tool name are the only hints; the description itself adds no meaning beyond the input schema.

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 is a provenance statement — 'Delegated Apple domain tool ... exposed through Apple-Tools-MCP' — not a functional one. It never states what the tool does; the verb 'set' and resource 'dock show recents' live only in the tool name, and the description offers no clarification of the effect. Among many system_set_* siblings, it provides no 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?

There is no usage guidance at all: no when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, no mention of alternatives or prerequisites. An agent choosing between system_set_dock_show_recents, system_set_dock_autohide, and the other system_set_* tools receives zero help from this description.

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