mobile_clear_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the mutating action and notes that it returns a JSON response, but it does not discuss irreversibility, behavior when no field is focused, or whether clearing triggers UI events.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action appears first, followed by a structured Args/Returns section. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the action, target field, required device identifier, and return type. It lacks explicit when-to-use/alternative guidance and edge-case behavior, but nothing essential to a basic call 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?

The schema only defines serialno as a required string, while the description adds 'The mobile device serialno, from list_devices,' telling the agent exactly where to obtain the value. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 opens with 'Clear the focused text field' – a specific verb, target, and scope. It is distinct from the mobile_* input/tap siblings because it names the clear action, but it does not explicitly mention any 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?

'Focused text field' implies the precondition that a field must be focused and that the tool is meant for erasing its content. However, there are no explicit exclusions or references to alternatives like mobile_input_text, so usage guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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