tv_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely valuable trait: some apps (YouTube) ignore the input and acknowledgement does not confirm insertion, so the agent should not trust success. However, it omits matters like error behavior, the meaning of the capture mode, and what 'focused-field' implies about prior state.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the risk caveat following. No filler, though the brevity is partly achieved by leaving parameters unexplained.

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 documented, and the caveat covers the main success-verification risk. Still, an unexplained enum parameter and no annotations leave the definition thin for correctly invoking the tool with a non-default capture mode.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but does not: the required 'text' parameter is only implicitly referenced, and the 'capture' enum (auto/never/always, default auto) is never explained. An agent cannot infer what capture controls or when to override the default.

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 and resource ('Send focused-field text'), making clear this is the text-entry tool rather than a key-press or click tool among the tv_* siblings. It lacks explicit differentiation from siblings like tv_press or tv_click, but the 'text' focus is distinctive enough for an agent to select it.

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 versus alternatives such as tv_press or tv_app_action, nor on prerequisites like whether a field must first be focused via tv_click. The caveat about some apps ignoring the input is a behavioral warning, not a usage rule.

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