set_input_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses node resolution (panel uid + refKey OR path), that it calls ActivateInputField(), fires the PROJECT_COMMIT_TEXT callback, and that it does NOT synthesize per-key device events because that is unreliable under the new Input System. It omits failure behavior when the node is missing and whether text replaces or appends.

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?

Front-loads 'Write op' and the core action, then layers resolution and behavior in short paragraphs. The FINAL-VERIFICATION block is useful but slightly verbose relative to the rest.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the PlayMode-only constraint plus resolution scheme are stated. What remains thin is error behavior for unresolved nodes, minor for a UI helper.

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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the key relationship that the node is resolved by panel uid + refKey OR path, which the flat schema cannot express, but it never explains path/ref_key formats or text semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sets an PROJECT_UI input field's text and commits it') and qualifies it as a write op. It also distinguishes itself from the per-key event path, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling simulate_key.

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?

Gives clear conditions: PlayMode-only, and use it during final verification when repro steps involve typing, followed by capture_screenshot. It excludes the per-key alternative implicitly but never names simulate_key explicitly, so no full 5.

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