BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation tool (readOnlyHint: false) that's idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this - it mentions providing a UUID and JSON object, but doesn't disclose important traits like authentication requirements (implied by connection config), potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose without redundancy. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated with the main description rather than appearing as separate bullet points.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with idempotent but non-destructive behavior, the description provides basic context but lacks important details. While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns), the description doesn't address authentication requirements, error handling, JSON format specifics, or how this tool relates to the broader trigger management workflow with sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries full burden for parameter documentation. It identifies that 'params' contains UUID and JSON properties to update, which matches the schema structure. However, it doesn't explain the JSON format requirements, connection configuration details, or provide examples of valid update properties, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 action ('Update an existing trigger's configuration') and identifies the resource ('trigger'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'btt_update_widget' or explain how updating a trigger differs from related operations like 'btt_add_trigger' or 'btt_get_trigger'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing trigger UUID), compare with sibling tools like 'btt_add_trigger' for creation or 'btt_delete_trigger' for removal, or indicate scenarios where partial updates are appropriate versus other methods.

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