aua_type_text

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral context: replace defaults to true (existing text is overwritten), no submit/Enter is pressed, verify performs an exact readback, the target app must support setText, and retries on uncertain input are discouraged. It doesn't say what happens on failure or how the field is chosen when selector is omitted.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, then prerequisites, defaults, and cautions. Every sentence conveys a distinct constraint; no filler.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested Selector/WaitCondition objects and no output schema, the description leaves the selector and wait_for mechanics fully unexplained and gives no return-value expectations. The key safety and default behaviors are covered, but the parameter surface is only partially addressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It covers text (Unicode, newlines require allow_newlines=true), replace (default true), and verify (exact readback), but says nothing about observe (none/tree/screenshot/both), selector, or wait_for, leaving three of seven parameters undocumented.

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 a specific verb and target: 'Set Unicode text on a focused, editable, non-password field.' The constraints (focused, editable, non-password) define exactly the class of element it targets and implicitly separate it from aua_tap, which is named as the focusing step.

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?

'Focus it with tap first' gives an explicit prerequisite and routes the agent to the sibling aua_tap, and 'Never blindly retry uncertain input' tells the agent what not to do. It stops short of naming alternatives for the input case (e.g., when to prefer press_button or batch), so not a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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