appium.type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does include the pre-tags '[approval required][device mutation][risk:dangerous]' which add context, but it does not explain the device mutation effect, whether it clears the field first by default, whether text is appended or replaced, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 one sentence with useful pre-tags, but it is not front-loaded with the most decision-relevant info and spends precious space listing locator strategies that are already in the schema. It is adequately short but omits important behavioral details that could have been added without much length.

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 mutates a device and has six parameters with no schema descriptions and no output schema. The description does not cover return behavior, preconditions like an active Appium session or visible element, or the effect of `clearFirst`. Given the tool's complexity and risk level, the description is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily, but it only mentions locator strategies and 'text' implicitly. It does not explain the `mode`, `clearFirst`, `serverUrl`, or `sessionId` parameters, nor does it clarify the structure of the `locator` object beyond listing strategies. The description adds almost no meaning beyond the parameter names and enum values.

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 action ('Type text into an element') and specifies the supported locator strategies, which helps distinguish it from tap-focused siblings like appium.tap_by_text and appium.tap_by_accessibility_id. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself with alternative tools, so it falls short of full 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tap_by_text or tap_coordinates, nor any mention of prerequisites like needing an active session or a visible element. The usage context is implied by the verb 'type', but the description does not help an agent decide between this and other input methods.

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