Click an anchored desktop control only after verifying the live screen matches the expected mapped state, with write effects requiring explicit authorization.
Click an anchored desktop control only when the live desktop still matches the expected mapped screen. Write effects require explicit authorization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | No | ||
| anchor_id | Yes | ||
| application | No | ||
| expected_screen | Yes | ||
| authorized_effects | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description still discloses two important behaviors: execution is gated on the live screen matching the mapped expectation, and write effects require explicit authorization. It leaves undisclosed what happens on a mismatch (abort vs error) and whether effects are reversible, but the safety profile is substantially better conveyed than the structured fields alone.
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?
Two short sentences, the critical guard condition leading, the authorization requirement second, with no filler. Every clause carries operational weight.
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 mutation-capable desktop click with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the safety gate but not failure behavior, effect propagation, or the app_id/application distinction. Adequate to call safely in the happy path, incomplete for edge cases.
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 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It indirectly explains anchor_id, expected_screen, and authorized_effects ("write effects require explicit authorization"), but app_id and application are completely undocumented in both places, and their apparent overlap is a real ambiguity for a caller.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Click an anchored desktop control"), which clearly separates it from browser siblings such as pulse_browser_click and from the observation tools. It does not name an alternative sibling explicitly, but the desktop-vs-browser distinction is unambiguous.
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?
It gives a concrete precondition for use — only click when the live desktop still matches the expected mapped screen — which implies observing first via pulse_desktop_observe. It does not state when not to use it or name explicit alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.