Set a checkbox or radio button to checked or unchecked in a job application form, specifying the element reference and reason for the action.
Check or uncheck a checkbox or radio button.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| role | Yes | ||
| reason | Yes | ||
| checked | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It states the core state change but does not disclose side effects, whether it simulates user interaction, how radio-group semantics are handled, or what happens when unchecking a radio button. This is a significant gap for a mutating UI tool.
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 with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the primary action and target element.
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 tool with four required parameters and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter semantics, clarify usage against sibling tools, or cover important behavioral details like radio grouping, making it incomplete for reliable 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%, and the description does not explain any of the four required parameters (ref, checked, role, reason). The agent is left to guess what each field means, especially role and reason, which are not self-evident.
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 operation: checking or unchecking a checkbox or radio button. It is specific about the resource type, which helps distinguish it from fill_field, select_option, and click_target, though it does not explicitly name those 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus click_target or other interaction tools. The description gives no context about prerequisites, radio-group behavior, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.