win_set_control_text

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

Annotations indicate write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), idempotent. Description adds important context: 'reliable, no focus needed', 'without bringing the window forward', and specifies the return format (target_hwnd, text_len). No contradictions.

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 paragraphs with front-loaded key insight. No unnecessary words. Includes example and return description. Efficient and clear.

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 description covers purpose, mechanism, target identification, background capability, and output format. For a tool with moderate complexity and a described output schema, it is fully adequate and leaves no significant gaps.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by stating 'target control by hwnd (preferred) or title' and referencing list_child_windows for hwnd. Schema already includes descriptions for each parameter, so the description reinforces and contextualizes.

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 purpose: 'Set a control's text directly via WM_SETTEXT' and emphasizes reliability and no focus needed. It distinguishes from sibling tools like win_send_keys (keystrokes) and type_text (typing with focus) by specifying background operation.

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 concrete usage: 'Pass the control's hwnd (from list_child_windows)' and provides a Notepad example. It implies when to use (background control text setting without focus) but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use.

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