Select Text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job was to add behavioral context beyond that. It only adds the UTF-16 detail; it does not disclose that selecting replaces the previous selection, how coordinate targets resolve, or what side effects occur on the text element.

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 concise sentence with no filler and the key operation is front-loaded. It is efficient, though slightly too terse to fully support the more complex parameter semantics.

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 tool with a non-trivial target schema, three parameters, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how target coordinates select a text element, what return_state values imply, or how text_range indices behave, leaving important context for the agent to infer.

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 phrase 'all or a UTF-16 range' gives useful meaning to text_range (null for all, array for a range) and adds UTF-16 encoding semantics. However, with schema description coverage at only 33%, the description does not compensate enough for the ambiguity of target (element vs coordinate) or clarify range inclusivity and bounds.

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 action ('select') on a specific resource ('text element') with a clear scope ('all or a UTF-16 range'). This distinguishes it from sibling actions like type, click, or set_value, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 select_text versus alternatives such as set_value or click, nor any mention of when not to use it. The only contextual hint is 'in a text element', which is too weak to route an agent to this tool confidently.

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