desktop_enter_text

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 explicitly states that the clipboard is replaced, that target contents are NOT verified, that terminals may execute newlines, and recommends verifying via dialogs/read-back. This is unusually transparent for a tool description.

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?

Four short, dense sentences cover the action, side effect, hazard, and recommended mitigation. There is no filler or repetition; the main action is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action, side effects, and key risks. However, window_id semantics are ambiguous, particularly whether prior activation via desktop_activate is required, and it does not describe return/error behavior. The 'current caret' phrasing leaves a gap between the specified window and the actual paste location.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must clarify parameters. It explains 'text' as literal and 'shortcut' as the application's explicit paste shortcut, but window_id is only indirectly implied by 'current caret'. It does not state whether window_id must be activated first or how the caret is selected within that window.

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 opens with 'Paste literal text at the current caret using the application's explicit shortcut', naming a specific verb, object, and mechanism. The 'literal text' and 'explicit shortcut' details distinguish it from sibling tools like desktop_set_text or desktop_press_keys, and the clipboard side effect is also mentioned.

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?

It gives clear operational context: pasting at the caret, using the application's shortcut, and the warning that terminals may execute newlines. It also advises reading back before proceeding. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over desktop_set_text or desktop_press_keys, nor does it list exclusions.

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