keyboard_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the meaningful mutation behavior (existing field content is replaced by default, appended with clear=false) and the bridge mechanism, but it is silent on the verification/polling behavior implied by verify, verify_poll_ms and verify_timeout_ms, and on what happens when no field is focused or verification fails.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the action and target before the one actionable option. Nothing needs trimming and nothing important is buried.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the destructive/append distinction but leaves the entire verification sub-behavior (verify, polling interval, timeout) unexplained and says nothing about error or no-focus outcomes. It is adequate but has clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including defaults. The description only restates the `clear` semantics ('append instead of replacing'), which the schema covers as 'Clear the field first', and adds nothing about the verify parameters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Types text into the currently focused field') and names the underlying mechanism (Portal keyboard bridge). It is clearly distinguishable in practice from keyboard_key and keyboard_clear, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from those siblings by name.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool operates on the 'currently focused field', which hints that focus must be established first (e.g. via tap/tap_element), and the clear flag tells you how to append. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on choosing this over keyboard_key or set_clipboard, and no stated preconditions or failure conditions.

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