Replace text in an element using accessibility and verify exact readback. Accepts LF, Tab, and Unicode, while rejecting control characters without submitting.
Replace all text through accessibility and compare exact readback. Preserves LF, Tab and Unicode; rejects other control characters. Does not submit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| element_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does so well: it notes the accessibility-based method, exact readback comparison, preservation of LF/Tab/Unicode, rejection of other control characters, and absence of form submission. This is substantially more transparent than a generic 'set text' statement, though it does not cover failure modes or prerequisites.
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?
Three short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by value-adding behavioral constraints and a clear negative side-effect. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, character constraints, and what it does not do. It lacks explicit guidance on element_id provenance and error behavior, but the provided details are enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most desktop automation flows.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enriches the 'text' parameter by specifying allowed characters and what is rejected, but it leaves 'element_id' completely unaddressed beyond its schema title and name. Partial compensation only.
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 states a specific action—'Replace all text through accessibility'—and identifies the resource (text via accessibility). It clearly differentiates from siblings like desktop_enter_text and desktop_read_text by emphasizing replacement of the entire text value rather than insertion or reading.
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 phrase 'Replace all text' implies the use case of overwriting an element's entire text content, and 'Does not submit' provides a negative boundary. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over desktop_enter_text or when it is not appropriate, leaving usage conditions largely implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.