fix_touch_targets

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates the node tree, but it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, how touch targets are adjusted, or whether the operation changes layout/sizing.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action, target, threshold, and scope are all packed into a compact statement that earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple with one documented parameter, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks details about return values, side effects, and operational caveats, leaving some uncertainty for an agent deciding whether this is safe to invoke.

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 100%, so the schema already documents nodeId as 'Root node to fix'. The description adds the 'node tree' context but does not meaningfully expand on the parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Auto-fix') and identifies a precise resource ('all touch targets below 44px in a node tree'). This clearly distinguishes it from audit/check tools among the siblings, which only identify issues rather than fix them.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like audit_accessibility, check_contrast, or lint_design. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred workflow positioning.

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