aua_type_text

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

Annotations already mark the tool as mutating and non-idempotent; the description adds important context beyond that: no submit, replace defaults to true, verify triggers exact readback, and uncertain input should not be blindly retried. It could further explain replace=false behavior, but the extra behavioral detail is substantial and consistent with annotations.

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?

Seven short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then prerequisites and flags; no filler. The density is appropriate for a tool with several behavioral constraints.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and key flags, but omits selector and observe semantics that an agent needs to invoke it fully. It is adequate but incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains text, verify, replace, and allow_newlines, but never mentions the observe enum or the complex selector object, leaving two parameters and the nested selector schema undocumented. That partial coverage merits a 3.

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 opens with a specific verb and target ('Set Unicode text on a focused, editable, non-password field'), making the operation and its scope immediately clear. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the scope constraints distinguish it adequately from generic action tools like aua_screen_action.

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 gives concrete prerequisites ('Focus it with tap first'), default behavior, app-support requirement, newline handling, and a caution against blind retries. It never states when not to use this tool or explicitly names an alternative such as aua_screen_action, so it is clear but not fully routing.

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