css_force_pseudo

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 does not explain whether the forced pseudo-states are temporary, how to reset them, if there are side effects, or what happens if the selector doesn't match an element. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies visual state.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that exactly states the function and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral transparency (e.g., what happens after forcing states, how to undo). It also doesn't explain any constraints, such as whether the selector must be currently present. A more complete description would cover these points.

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 coverage is 100%, with both 'selector' and 'pseudoClasses' documented. The description's examples of pseudo-classes overlap but don't fully enumerate the enum values. It adds no extra syntax or meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 function: forcing pseudo-states on an element, with concrete examples (:hover, :focus, :active). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling CSS inspection tools like css_computed_style or css_matched_rules.

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 phrase 'for testing' provides clear context for when to use this tool (during testing). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident. A slightly stronger guideline would name alternative approaches, but this is sufficient.

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