ui_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and it does so well: it discloses refusal behavior for non-editable widgets and verifies writes by reading the value back before answering. It doesn't cover failure/timeout behavior or focus side effects, but it explains the important semantic guarantees of the tool.

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 summary action is front-loaded, and both follow-up paragraphs earn their place by explaining a refusal guard and why the read-back is necessary. There is no filler, and the rationale is tightly tied to correct usage.

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 tool has six parameters and zero schema description coverage, and the description only covers the write/read behavior. It omits how `root`, `timeout`, `expect_name`, and `expect_class` shape the lookup or verification, leaving an agent with significant unknowns for correct invocation despite the output schema covering returns.

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%, yet the description only weakly illuminates the parameters: 'text' is implied as the value written and read back, and 'path' as the target widget. 'root', 'timeout', 'expect_name', and 'expect_class' are not explained at all, so an agent cannot infer their meaning from the description.

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 first sentence names a specific action and resource ('Write into an edit box, and read it back'), and the later constraint makes clear it targets only player-editable fields. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool as an alternative, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 an explicit when-to-use ('Only a field the player could type into may be written') and an explicit when-not-to-use (writing a mod's label would create a lie on screen and is refused). It also points at the alternative naive approach (TextWidget.SetText) and explains why it is not acceptable, so an agent has clear selection criteria.

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