set_inputs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool waits for the app to settle and warns if an input ends up with a different value than requested, which are non-obvious behaviors. It does not mention timeout behavior or preconditions like the app needing to be running, but the included details add meaningful context.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, gives an example, notes a useful behavioral warning, and closes with explicit sibling routing. Every sentence earns its place without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how values look, what happens afterward, and which sibling tools handle other cases. It lacks explicit timeout semantics and return value details, but is still sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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. It does add meaning for the 'values' parameter through a concrete example and by saying inputs are set 'through their widgets'. However, it does not explain 'app_id' or 'timeout_s' beyond their names, leaving some parameter semantics to inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set one or more inputs ... through their widgets'. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating 'Use click for buttons and upload_file for file inputs', so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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 provides clear routing to alternatives for buttons and file inputs, which is strong usage guidance. It implies the tool is for input widgets other than buttons and file inputs, but does not explicitly spell out all when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenarios.

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