type_text

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description repeats 'DESTRUCTIVE' without adding new safety info. However, it discloses important behavioral context beyond annotations: the need to enable HID via KVM_PILOT_MCP_ALLOW_HID and the per-invocation approval mechanism (human or confirm=true). This adds meaningful transparency about invocation requirements and side effects (typing on the console is disruptive).

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 efficient: the first sentence states the purpose, 'DESTRUCTIVE' is a clear warning, and the second sentence details prerequisites and approval flow. No wasted words; each sentence serves a distinct role. The structure with a newline separating action from requirements aids readability.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, destructive nature, and key prerequisites. However, it does not explain the 'profile' parameter, and since there is no output schema, it also omits what the caller should expect in response (e.g., success/failure or confirmation). Given the tool's complexity (HID typing, approvals), a bit more detail about return behavior or error cases would improve completeness.

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?

The description gives some meaning to 'text' by embedding it in the action, and explains 'confirm' as an explicit approval path ('explicit confirm=true'). However, the 'profile' parameter is not mentioned at all, and with 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate more fully. It partially adds value but leaves a significant parameter unexplained.

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 clearly states the verb ('Type') and resource ('text on the managed host's console over the HID keyboard'). It is specific about the delivery mechanism, distinguishing it from siblings like press_key or send_shortcut. The 'DESTRUCTIVE' label is a warning, not the purpose, so the core action 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 usage for typing arbitrary text on a console, which distinguishes it from key-specific tools like press_key. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The prerequisites (HID enabled, per-invocation approval) provide context for when it can be invoked, but not selection guidance relative to siblings.

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