Set or replace text in a Windows desktop UI control by specifying the window title and control identifier, enabling automated form entry and field updates.
Windows AutoIt controlSetText. Requires a trusted owner and an interactive Windows x64 desktop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | Window text | |
| title | Yes | Window title | |
| control | Yes | Control identifier | |
| controlText | Yes | Text to set/send to control |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context not in the annotations: it requires a trusted owner and an interactive x64 desktop, which explains execution preconditions. It still doesn't say whether existing control text is overwritten, but it meaningfully supplements the structured hints.
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 sentences with the requirements front-loaded and no filler. Slightly penalized because the first sentence only repeats the name/underlying function rather than adding content.
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 there is no output schema, so the description should ideally explain return behavior or failure modes, which it does not. Annotations plus the stated environment prerequisites give an adequate but not complete picture.
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 already documents all four parameters (text, title, control, controlText). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, syntax, or control-identifier formats beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
"Windows AutoIt controlSetText" essentially restates the tool name and the underlying AutoIt function; it never clarifies in plain terms that this writes/replaces the text content of a UI control. The name carries most of the meaning, and there is no differentiation from siblings like controlSend or controlCommand.
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 states environmental prerequisites (trusted owner, interactive Windows x64 desktop) but gives no guidance on when to use this versus controlSend, controlCommand, or controlGetText. No alternatives or selection conditions are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.