fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by disclosing that the action replaces text, that recordAs prevents sensitive text from entering a recorded replay while still sending it to the live app, and that the operation times out after 90s unless a caller budget extends it. These are meaningful behavioral details, though it does not cover error behavior or side effects beyond the action itself.

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 three sentences with no filler: purpose, targeting/recording guidance, and timeout behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Given the high parameter count (26) and the presence of an output schema, the description plus parameter descriptions provide a fairly complete picture. It gives the key operational context: prefer snapshot-based targets, handle sensitive text carefully, and expect a 90s upper bound. It does not explain the relationship to sibling `type`, which would make the contextual picture fully complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 26 parameters in detail. The description adds value around targeting modes and recordAs, but these are also represented in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the description does not need to compensate for undocumented parameters.

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 the verb (replace), the resource (text in a UI input), and the three targeting modes (snapshot ref, selector, coordinates). It is specific enough that an agent can understand the core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tool `type`, which is a likely alternative for entering text.

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 gives useful contextual guidance: prefer refs or selectors after a snapshot, use recordAs for sensitive text, and be aware of the 90s timeout. It does not, however, provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives such as `type`, so it falls short of a 5.

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