element_input

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the action. It does not mention whether existing text is replaced or appended, whether the element needs focus, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like 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, front-loaded sentence with no extra words. It achieves maximum conciseness while conveying the essential purpose.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and the target element type. However, with no annotations and no behavioral details, it remains incomplete as a standalone reference. It would benefit from clarifying how the input is applied.

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 50%: value has a description, but element_id does not. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, leaving element_id completely undocumented. The phrase '输入文本' only vaguely aligns with the value parameter and does not help clarify how parameters work.

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 '向 input/textarea 组件输入文本' (input text into input/textarea component) clearly states a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from siblings like element_tap (tap action) and element_value (retrieve value), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied for input/textarea components, but the description does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use this instead of element_call_method for text entry' or prerequisites.

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