set_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool clears before typing, supports Unicode via URL-encoding, and rejects shell metacharacters—important behavioral traits beyond bare schema. It does not mention limits like maxClearChars behavior, but the disclosed traits are valuable.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by two critical constraints. Ideal structure.

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 with two well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers purpose and key constraints. Minor gaps exist (e.g., precise meaning of 'current input field', behavior when exceeding maxClearChars), but overall it is complete enough for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both text and maxClearChars, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantics for the text parameter by noting Unicode URL-encoding and shell metacharacter rejection, which are meaningful constraints not present in the schema.

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: 'Clear the current input field and type new text.' This distinctively combines clearing and typing, differentiating it from siblings like 'clear_input' and 'type_text'. The verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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 implies the usage scenario (replacing existing text in a focused field) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternatives are named, so guidance is only implicit.

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