desktop_type_secret

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so exceptionally well. It discloses that the tool never reads back or echoes the value, uses no clipboard, reports dispatched only, rejects LF/CR and maxlength overflow, and notes that masking is application-controlled. This is rich, security-relevant behavior far beyond a generic 'types text.'

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 four dense sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct, necessary constraint or behavior. 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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the critical behavioral and prerequisite context well: target requirements, input constraints, and response reporting. It does not fully clarify jargon like 'owned password input' or explain how to obtain the element_id, but these are relatively minor gaps for a two-parameter tool with such a detailed description.

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 does by explaining constraints relevant to the text value (LF/CR rejection, maxlength behavior, no echo) and by clarifying the target element requirements (protected EditableText or owned password input). It does not explicitly map element_id and text to their meanings, but the parameter names plus these constraints make the semantics reasonably clear.

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 verb and resource: 'Replace an observed protected field.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like desktop_type, desktop_paste, and desktop_set_value by emphasizing protected-field usage, no clipboard, and no read-back. This gives an agent a precise idea of what the tool does without inspecting the schema.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: it requires a native protected EditableText or an owned password input with known inactive composition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, such as pointing to desktop_type for normal fields. This is clear context with no explicit exclusions.

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