Touchpad or touchscreen control

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it can read or modify state, uses persistent Hyprland state, includes verification and rollback, and supports dry-run. This goes beyond a simple action statement and gives an agent confidence about side effects and safety.

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 two sentences, with the primary action front-loaded, followed by two valuable caveats (verification/rollback and dry-run). Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, state persistence, safety mechanisms (verification/rollback), and dry-run. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly, though it could be more explicit about prerequisites like permissions, but that is a minor gap.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for no parameters is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter details since none exist. No gap to compensate.

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 ('Read or explicitly enable/disable') and a specific resource ('locally detected touchpad or touchscreen'), making the purpose unmistakable. It also adds context about using Omarchy's persistent Hyprland state, which differentiates it from generic input commands.

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 description provides context about the state, verification, rollback, and dry-run, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus any alternative. No exclusions are given, and no sibling tool is named, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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