qt_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: clear_first selects-all-then-deletes, and use_clipboard switches from synthesized key events to Ctrl+V paste. The warning that character-by-character typing corrupts multi-line console input is exactly the kind of non-obvious side effect that prevents failed calls. It leaves unstated whether the target must be focused/visible and how failures surface, though the output schema covers return values.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; every sentence, including the multi-line caveat, carries actionable information. The caveat is slightly verbose but is placed next to the parameter it governs.

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-style tool with no annotations, the description covers the operation, both mode switches, and the one dangerous edge case; an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The undocumented `instance` parameter is the only substantive hole.

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 has to compensate, and it documents 4 of 5 parameters including the semantics of both booleans and the origin of ref. The `instance` parameter is never mentioned in either the schema or the description, leaving one gap.

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 ("Type text into a widget") and ties ref to qt_snapshot, so an agent knows it is an input-simulation tool rather than a query. It stops short of naming the nearest sibling (qt_key_press) or explaining the boundary between whole-string typing and raw key events.

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 an explicit conditional rule for use_clipboard — multi-line text in console/terminal widgets — with the failure mode spelled out (newlines become Enter/submit). It does not say when to prefer this tool over qt_key_press or what to do if the widget is not focused.

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