ui_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that replace clears the field and submit presses Enter, but leaves unclear whether default typing appends, inserts at the cursor, or replaces text, and it does not cover failure behavior or return effects.

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 definition is two tight sentences with no wasted language, and the core action is front-loaded before the behavioral modifiers.

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 an 8-parameter UI automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main action and two key modifiers but is thin on failure handling, default typing behavior, and what is returned after the interaction.

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 63%, and the description usefully adds meaning for replace and submit, which lack schema descriptions. It does not further explain window, settle_ms, or release_focus beyond the schema, so it adds only partial semantic value across the 8 parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: typing text into the focused element, with an explicit option to focus by ref or query first. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling UI tools such as ui_key or ui_click.

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 explains that ref/query can be used to focus an element first and clarifies replace/submit behavior, but it does not say when to prefer this tool over ui_key, ui_click, or other UI interaction siblings. Usage is implied rather than explicitly bounded.

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