Type text

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

Annotations only cover openWorldHint and destructiveHint, so the description carries the real behavioral load, and it does: it discloses that existing content is replaced rather than appended, that a field must already be focused, and that the call silently no-ops otherwise. It does not say whether the text is submitted after typing or what a failure looks like, which keeps it below 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, and the primary action plus its prerequisite are both front-loaded before the edge-case caveat.

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 single-parameter, non-destructive, output-schema-free tool, the description covers the action, the prerequisite, and the silent-failure case, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around whether typing auto-submits and whether pairing must precede it, but nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by making clear that 'text' is the full replacement content rather than an appended string. It says nothing about the 500-character limit or any character/charset constraints, so the schema's maxLength is the only guard and the agent could still overrun it.

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 gives a specific verb ('replaces') and resource ('the content of the text field that is open on the TV') and parenthetically scopes it to search boxes and keyboards. An agent can tell this is a text-entry tool rather than a navigation tool, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with tv_press_keys, which is the closest sibling and could also emit characters.

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 states a clear precondition ('Open the field first') and an explicit failure condition ('this does nothing if no keyboard is on screen'), which is exactly the when-not guidance an agent needs. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use tv_press_keys to navigate to the field or to submit), so it is clear context without full routing.

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