mcp-electron-driver

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the action ('Uncheck a checkbox'), conditional behavior ('No-op if already unchecked'), and implies mutation (unchecking changes state). However, it doesn't cover error handling (e.g., if selector doesn't match), performance aspects, or side effects, leaving gaps 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: the first states the core action and target, and the second adds critical behavioral context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and efficiently covers key information 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters with partial schema coverage, the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic action and conditional behavior but lacks details on error cases, return values, or advanced usage (e.g., interaction with 'force' parameter). For a mutation tool in this context, it meets minimum viability but isn't fully complete.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions: 'timeoutMs' and 'force'), with 'selector' lacking a description. The description adds value by explaining that 'selector' matches a checkbox and that the action is conditional ('No-op if already unchecked'), which compensates partially for the schema gap. However, it doesn't detail selector syntax or format, so it doesn't fully compensate for the 33% 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 ('Uncheck a checkbox') and target ('matching a selector'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'check' (which would check a checkbox) and 'clear_input' (which clears text inputs). It also specifies the conditional behavior ('No-op if already unchecked'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 for unchecking checkboxes, with 'No-op if already unchecked' suggesting it's safe to call repeatedly. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'check' or 'clear_input', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the checkbox must exist). This provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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