astrax_escribir

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect: non-ASCII input (ñ, accents, emojis) is routed through the clipboard, implying clipboard state may be clobbered. It does not cover error behavior, whether existing field content is replaced or appended, or timing/focus-loss risks.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the focus prerequisite and the non-ASCII caveat front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. For a one-parameter typing tool, the description covers the key operational caveats (focus requirement, clipboard fallback), leaving only edge cases like replacement semantics or failure modes unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter (texto) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of meaning. "Teclea texto" plus the non-ASCII note implies the parameter is the literal string to type, which is adequate for a self-evident single argument but adds no format, length, or escaping detail.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: typing text into the currently focused element. It is distinguishable from astrax_tecla (single key) and astrax_portapapeles (clipboard manipulation), but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation must be inferred from their names.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ("clic antes en el campo"), which is useful operational guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over astrax_tecla, astrax_atajo or astrax_portapapeles, so alternative-selection is left to inference.

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