Replace the value of a panel field at specified (x, y) coordinates and commit it with Enter. Use to update X/Y/W/H, color hex, or other panel fields.
Replace the value of a panel field at (x, y) (X/Y/W/H, colour hex, ...) and commit with Enter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | Yes | ||
| y | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| screenshot_after | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does add one valuable non-schema fact: the value is committed with Enter, so no separate confirm is needed. However, it omits failure handling (what happens if no field is at those coordinates) and the coordinate basis, leaving meaningful gaps.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the coordinate anchor and commit behavior are stated compactly. Minor loss because the parenthetical examples crowd the core action.
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 coordinate-based GUI mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% param coverage, the description covers the essentia action but omits failure behavior and the screenshot_after parameter, so it is adequate but incomplete.
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 and only partially does: (x, y) implies coordinates and the examples (X/Y/W/H, colour hex) hint at what 'value' holds. The fourth parameter, screenshot_after, is never mentioned, and there is no format/precision guidance.
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 ('Replace') and resource ('value of a panel field at (x, y)') with concrete examples of field content. It is distinguishable from type_text/click by targeting a panel field and auto-committing. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?
The description implies usage through 'panel field at (x, y)' but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or guidance on choosing this over type_text/press_key/click for editing a field. An agent is left to infer the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.