kde_input_type

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

The annotations already mark this tool as openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it has side effects. The description adds the useful constraint that it will not implicitly raise or focus a window. It does not say what happens when window_id is not the active window (error vs. misdirected input), nor that typing into a live desktop can trigger irreversible actions.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, ending with the most important caveat. No filler words.

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 destructive input-injection tool with no output schema, key behavior is undefined: does it fail or silently type elsewhere when the window is not active, does it place text at the cursor, does it append or replace, how are newlines and non-ASCII characters handled? The description covers the essential precondition but leaves these operational questions unanswered.

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 only 33%, with only 'session' documented, so the description must carry more weight. 'Literal text' usefully clarifies that 'text' is raw characters rather than key syntax, and 'target window' maps to window_id. However, the schema also requires window_id even though the description says the window is already active; this leaves unclear how window_id is matched or validated.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: 'Type literal text into an already-active target window'. 'Literal text' implicitly distinguishes this tool from kde_input_key, which sends key names, and the 'no implicit activation' clause distinguishes it from kde_window_activate. It never names either sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 phrase 'already-active target window' conveys the precondition that the window must be focused before calling, which implies activating a window first. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool instead of kde_input_key, and no guidance on what to do when the target is not active.

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