clear_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavior: clearing the focused field when no selector is given. However, it does not describe failure modes, whether the operation is destructive beyond clearing, or how multiple matching elements are handled, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 description is a single, compact sentence and front-loads the primary action. It would be slightly better if it named the concrete selector parameters, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits essential context for correct invocation: how to express a selector, whether multiple selector params combine, and what happens when no selector matches. An agent calling this tool with only the schema and description would lack enough detail to reliably construct arguments.

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?

The schema has zero parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate by explaining what index, resource_id, target_text, and text_contains mean. It only refers generically to 'selector' without mapping that term to the actual parameters, leaving an agent to guess how the four optional fields are used to locate the input.

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 clearly states a specific action ('clear') and resource ('text of an input field'), and distinguishes the two invocation modes: by selector or on the focused field. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like input_text, but the verb 'clear' is sufficiently distinct from 'input'.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as input_text or tap. There is no mention of preconditions, exclusions, or typical clearing workflows, so an agent must infer the appropriate usage context.

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