janela_digitar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the non-destructive insert-at-cursor semantics, but says nothing about required focus/active window, failure modes if the field or window is not found, or any return behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no wasted wording; the destructive-behavior caveat is placed prominently. Only minor awkwardness from the line-broken 'alvo:' clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the unmentioned required 'titulo' parameter and absent routing guidance leave real 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'alvo' well (number or field name, empty means main field), but the required 'titulo' parameter is never mentioned and 'texto' is only implied by the verb.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: typing text at the cursor position in a window field, with the non-destructive caveat '(não apaga o que já existe)'. It does not name a sibling to contrast with (janela_clicar, navegador_preencher), so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'digita texto na posição do cursor' and the note that existing content is preserved, which hints at when this beats a clear-and-replace approach. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to janela_clicar or navegador_preencher is given.

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