uncheck

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 states only 'uncheck a checkbox' with no indication of idempotency, error behavior for non-checkbox elements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating action, leaving the agent without expectations about state changes or failure modes.

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 a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the exact action and object, achieving maximum clarity per word. This is an example of effective conciseness, not under-specification.

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, and the schema covers parameters fully. However, there is no output schema and no behavioral detail about the action's effects or prerequisites. For a mutating action on UI elements, an agent would benefit from knowing idempotency or typical use cases. The description is adequate for a simple action but leaves some gap regarding expected outcomes.

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?

The input schema provides full coverage (100%) with descriptions for all parameters: target, lease, and session. The description itself adds nothing beyond the schema. Since the schema already documents each parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance the semantics.

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 verb 'uncheck' and the resource 'a checkbox', making the core action unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'check' by inversion, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or explain the difference. The name itself conveys the inverse operation, so an agent can infer the purpose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'check' or 'click'. No mention of preconditions, such as whether the element must already be checked, or scenarios where this is appropriate. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the verb, which is minimal guidance.

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