desktop_multi_editEnter text into multiple desktop input fields at once by supplying [x, y, text] coordinates and values. Requires desktop permission in an active mission step.
Enter text into multiple input fields. Provide a list of [x, y, text] triples. Requires desktop_permission in the active mission step.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fields | Yes | List of [x, y, text] — click each coordinate and type the text. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description is consistent with them. It adds the permission requirement, which is useful context, but does not disclose what happens to existing field contents or whether edits are atomic.
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?
Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every sentence carries distinct information (action, argument format, permission prerequisite).
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers purpose, argument shape, and permission requirements. Only minor gaps remain around atomicity and existing-content behavior.
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 100% and the schema already describes the [x, y, text] triple format and coordinate semantics. The description repeats that format without adding syntax or behavioral detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Enter text into multiple input fields') and the 'multiple' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the single-field siblings like desktop_type and desktop_set_value. It does not name those alternatives explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Provides the key prerequisite ('Requires desktop_permission in the active mission step') which is genuine usage context, but gives no guidance on when to prefer this batch tool over desktop_type or desktop_set_value. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.