emulate_touch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Toggle touch emulation' and does not disclose effects on input events, whether it overrides device emulation, or any state changes beyond the obvious. No side effects or limitations are mentioned.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a simple tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. However, the description lacks context about how touch emulation interacts with other emulation features, when it should be enabled, or what the impact is. It is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps for a newcomer.

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 each parameter having a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but it does not need to since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 'Toggle touch emulation' clearly identifies the action (toggle) and the resource (touch emulation), distinguishing it from other emulate_* siblings like emulate_device or emulate_geolocation. It is not a tautology, but it could be more explicit about setting enabled state rather than toggling.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, interaction with other emulation tools, or scenarios where touch emulation is needed. The description is purely declarative with no contextual advice.

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