android_uiautomator_set_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method ('using UIAutomator') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires device interaction permissions, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing text), error handling, or performance implications. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key action ('Set text') and includes essential context ('by resource ID using UIAutomator'), making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permissions, side effects), error conditions, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation in an Android automation context.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (resourceId, text, deviceSerial). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.

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 ('Set text') and target ('on a UI element by resource ID using UIAutomator'), distinguishing it from generic text input tools like 'android_input_text'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling UIAutomator tools like 'android_uiautomator_clear_text' in terms of specific use cases.

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 usage for setting text on UI elements identified by resource ID, which suggests it's for targeted text input in Android apps. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'android_input_text' (for general text) or 'android_uiautomator_clear_text' (for clearing text), leaving the agent to infer based on context.

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