enter_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. It clearly discloses the default behavior (replaces existing text) and the clearFirst option, which is genuinely non-obvious behavioral context. However, it doesn't describe side effects like whether the widget gains focus, what happens on failure, or any authentication/permission needs. Still, the default-vs-option behavior disclosure is valuable and above baseline.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states the core action and default behavior, the second explains the key option. Every word earns its place. Fully front-loaded with the most important information first.

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 text-entry tool with full schema coverage and no output schema (return value is presumably trivial), the description covers the core behavior and the most important flag (clearFirst). It's reasonably complete, though it could mention focus behavior or confirmation of action. Given the tool's moderate complexity, this is adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly, including the target string format examples. The description adds meaning to clearFirst (explaining its purpose as clearing and re-focusing) but doesn't add significant value for the other parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Enters text into a widget found by the target string') with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tap and get_text by focusing on text entry, and the target-based widget matching is clearly described.

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 implies the core use case (entering text into a widget) and clarifies the clearFirst behavior, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives. Among siblings, get_text is the inverse operation and tap is related, but no explicit distinction is drawn. The clearFirst explanation offers some usage context but not full comparative guidance.

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