mcp-electron-driver

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the action as clearing values, which implies mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it triggers events), error handling, or response format. The analogy to 'selecting all and deleting' adds some behavioral context but is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 concise sentences with zero waste, front-loading the core action and providing a helpful analogy. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, return values, and full parameter meanings, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 50% (only 'timeoutMs' has a description). The description does not explain the 'selector' parameter beyond implying it targets inputs/textarea, nor does it clarify the 'timeoutMs' beyond the schema's default. It adds minimal value over the schema, resulting in a baseline score due to moderate coverage gap.

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 specific action ('Clear the value'), target resource ('input or textarea matching a selector'), and method ('Equivalent to selecting all and deleting'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'type', 'get_value', or 'set_input_files' that involve different operations on similar elements.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of clearing values, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'type' (for setting new values) or 'get_value' (for reading values). The context suggests it's for resetting input fields, but no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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