tv_text

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, closed world); the description adds substantive behavioral constraints beyond them — input must be printable ASCII, Unicode and literal %s are rejected. It omits failure behavior (error vs. partial typing) and whether text appends to or replaces existing field content, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 dense sentence with the action, precondition, and rejection rules front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place by preventing a specific input error.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the precondition and character restrictions. The remaining gap is what occurs when no field is focused or when unsupported input is sent, which matters for an automation tool that mutates UI state.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the meaning of the single `text` argument, and it does add crucial constraints not present in the schema: ASCII-only and no literal %s. The schema's minLength/maxLength bounds are undocumented in prose, and the parameter name is never explicitly tied to these rules, but the added meaning is substantial.

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?

"Type printable ASCII into the already focused field" gives a concrete verb (type) and resource (focused text field), so an agent immediately knows this is text entry rather than navigation or launch. It is distinct from siblings like tv_navigate and tv_launch, though the description never names them or states which tool establishes focus.

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 phrase "already focused field" implies a precondition: focus must exist before calling, which is useful guidance. However, it never says which sibling (e.g., tv_navigate or tv_ui_metadata) to use to establish focus, nor what happens if nothing is focused, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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