Type into Studio

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

With annotations already declaring destructive=true and readOnly=false, the description adds useful context about mode prerequisites, explicit replace semantics, and the need to inspect the result. It does not contradict the 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?

The definition is compact and front-loads the core action. Later sentences are dense but each carries relevant usage or safety information.

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 destructive, state-changing UI tool with no output schema, the description covers the key mode requirements and advises inspecting the result. It is mostly complete, though failure behavior and undo/state effects are not described.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it does add meaning for text, replace, focus_mode, and observation_token. It names both modes and explains replace explicitly, though it omits details such as the text length limit.

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: "Type literal text in a focused field." It is clear what the tool does but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools such as studio_set_value or studio_press_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?

It gives clear operational preconditions: accessibility mode requires editable UIA, and screenshot mode requires a preceding click plus inspected caret/focus and token. It also clarifies that replacement is explicit and the typed result should be inspected, but it does not name alternative tools.

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