delete_textDelete characters before the cursor in the focused text field on an LG webOS TV. Specify the count to remove multiple characters at once.
フォーカス中のテキストフィールドからカーソル前の文字を削除する。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | 削除する文字数。既定 1 | |
| device | No | 対象デバイス名または IP。省略時は既定デバイス（--device / WEBOS_DEVICE / devices.json の defaultDevice） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly identifies the destructive effect and precondition, but it does not describe behavior when no text field is focused, when the field is empty, or when count exceeds available characters.
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?
A single, direct Japanese sentence that front-loads the operation and context with no filler 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?
For a simple optional-parameter command with no output schema, the description and schema together cover normal usage well. Minor gaps remain around edge/failure cases, but an agent can select and invoke the tool correctly with confidence.
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 both count and device are already documented in the schema. The description adds directional context (cursor-before) but does not add meaning beyond the parameter definitions.
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 the exact operation (削除する), target (カーソル前の文字), and required context (フォーカス中のテキストフィールド). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like insert_text and send_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?
The description implies text-editing usage via 'focused text field' and 'cursor', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as send_key for backspace-like behavior or insert_text. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.