Server has 33 tools with consistent naming (verb_noun pattern) and descriptions present for all. However, parameter descriptions are minimal or absent for many tools. Input schemas are visible but lack depth, most parameters have type but minimal constraint documentation. Output schemas are not documented. Error handling exists but lacks recovery guidance. Tool composition is reasonable (single responsibility mostly observed), but parameter design could better match chat data model (e.g., accepting element names alongside IDs). Average tool description length ~80 chars (below 194 baseline), and many parameter descriptions are single-word or missing entirely.

• Expand parameter descriptions to include format, constraints, and examples. E.g., 'variables: Object with key-value pairs for selector substitution (e.g., {"username": "john", "password": "***"}). Keys must match ${VAR_NAME} placeholders in locators.'
• Document output schemas for all tools. Add a 'Returns' section to each tool description specifying field names, types, and meanings. E.g., 'Returns: {ok: boolean, result: {element_id: string, locator: object, properties: {name, type, ...}}, error?: string}'
• Add recovery guidance to error messages. Catch specific failures (element not found, timeout, permission denied) and suggest next steps. E.g., 'Element not found. Try: (1) list_windows() to see available windows, (2) find_elements() with broader criteria, or (3) inspect_point() at the expected location.'
• Implement confirmation flow for destructive operations. Add a 'confirm' parameter (like click_element) to delete_element, delete_folder, delete_project. Require explicit confirmation=true before executing.
• Expose tool annotations in schema. Add readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint fields to tool definitions so clients can filter/warn on risky operations. E.g., delete_element should have destructiveHint: true.