set_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits but fails to do so. It does not mention whether the action is destructive, if the field must be visible or editable, what permissions are needed, or any error conditions.

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 extremely brief (one sentence) but lacks structure. It does not front-load key details like parameter explanations or usage constraints. Conciseness here sacrifices necessary completeness.

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?

Despite an output schema being indicated, the description does not clarify return values or side effects. There is no mention of prerequisites, error handling, or behavior when the field is not editable. For a tool with 3 required params and no annotations, this is severely 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% and the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'window', 'element', or 'text'. The tool's name and 'via AT-SPI' hint at usage, but the parameters remain unexplained, leaving ambiguity about their values.

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 clearly states the verb 'set', the resource 'text content of an editable field', and the method 'via AT-SPI', making the tool's purpose immediately understandable and distinct from siblings like 'interact' or 'send_input'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'interact' for broader automation). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is inappropriate.

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