desktop_type

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the input mechanism and the HWND guard against focus stealing, but says nothing about pacing, failure modes, or whether text is inserted at the caret versus replacing anything.

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 sentence with the action and the target front-loaded, followed by the safety guard as a parenthetical. No redundant restatement of the name and nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 mutation-style input tool with no output schema, the definition covers the mechanism and one guard but omits return behavior and the meaning of the one non-obvious parameter. An agent can call it, but not predict its timing or failure output.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It reinforces `into_hwnd` (already documented in the schema) and hints that `text` is Unicode, but `delay_ms` (0-200ms, default 0) is left completely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it paces keystrokes or adds a single wait.

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 and resource ('Type Unicode text ... into the active foreground window') and even names the mechanism (SendInput KEYEVENTF_UNICODE), which implicitly distinguishes it from key-press or clipboard-paste siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, but the action is 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this over desktop_paste, desktop_key, or desktop_clipboard, nor any prerequisite or failure-condition guidance beyond the parenthetical about focus stealing. The parenthetical is parameter advice, not use-case routing.

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