tool_type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels: it discloses the mutation behavior (soft), serialization across agent sessions, lack of physical input injection, the potential to raise the window, and a practical user-safety warning. This is far beyond typical descriptions.

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 with no fluff. The main action and key constraints are front-loaded, and every phrase adds value—from the PostMessage detail to the mutating/serialization note to the user-warning.

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 4-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not clarify parameter semantics, required vs optional fields, or how to target the window (hwnd vs title). Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves critical calling details unaddressed.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies 'text' is the string and that the window is targeted (via hwnd or title), but it does not explain what each parameter does, how hwnd and title interact, or what delay_ms controls. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent constructing a call.

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 tool types a text string into a window character-by-character, specifically via window-targeted PostMessage rather than global keystrokes. This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates from sibling tools like tool_send_keys that likely use global keystrokes.

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?

It provides clear context: window-targeted, can run while the user types, and warns against typing into a window the user is actively using. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like tool_send_keys, so the 'when-not' guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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