type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the tool focuses the control and fires editing-change events, which adds valuable side-effect information beyond the name. It does not cover all potential edge cases, but it provides meaningful transparency for a text-entry tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action, target, identifier method, and side effects. Every element earns its place, with zero wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool has many parameters (11), but the schema descriptions cover them thoroughly, so the description need not repeat them. The core purpose and side effects are stated clearly, and the description is sufficient for selecting this tool over siblings. It could mention the wait/post-action behavior, but the schema already documents that.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter details beyond the schema; it only confirms the 'id' and 'text' purpose. No additional semantic value is provided for the wait-related parameters, but the schema already covers those.

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 uses a specific verb ('Append') with a resource ('text to a UITextField or UITextView') and identifier type ('stable DebugBridge ID'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_text. It also explains the focusing behavior, making the tool's purpose 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 provides clear context: use this tool to append text to a text field/view by ID, which implies it is not for replacing text (set_text would be for that). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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