BetterTouchTool MCP Server

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond annotations: it clarifies that updates are 'temporary' and don't change underlying configuration. However, annotations already provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description doesn't address rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens on failure. 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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, behavioral clarification, and parameter/return summaries. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections are slightly redundant with the schema but help readability. No wasted sentences, though could be more tightly integrated.

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 the tool has annotations (idempotent, non-destructive), an output schema (returns confirmation), and moderate complexity, the description provides adequate context. It covers purpose, temporary nature, and parameter overview. However, it lacks details on authentication (shared_secret in schema), error handling, and exact return format, leaving some gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Widget UUID, type, and display properties to update,' which maps to the single 'params' parameter and its nested structure. However, it doesn't explain specific fields like 'text', 'icon_path', or 'background_color' format, leaving significant gaps. The baseline is 3 since it provides some parameter context but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 the display') and resource ('Touch Bar, Menubar, or Stream Deck widget'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from configuration changes by noting it's 'temporary updates to widget appearance without changing the underlying configuration,' though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like btt_refresh_widget or btt_update_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 implies usage context by stating this is for 'temporary updates to widget appearance' rather than configuration changes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like btt_refresh_widget or btt_update_trigger. There's no mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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