fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the destructive side-effect ('Clear an input and fill it with text') and explains that `use_secret` pulls from the encrypted vault. However, it does not disclose requirements like target editability, failure behavior, or whether it replaces existing text beyond clearing, leaving room for more transparency.

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?

Two sentences, zero fluff. Core behavior is front-loaded, and the `use_secret` variant is mentioned immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has 7 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is thin. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the agent gets no guidance on its distinct role among the many sibling tools (e.g., `type`, `press`). The description is sufficient for the case a minimal call but lacks context needed to route the agent to the correct tool for the job.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, merely restating that `use_secret` supplies the value. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting and the description adds the clearing implication.

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 states the specific verb and resource: 'Clear an input and fill it with text.' This clearly distinguishes it from tools like type or select by emphasizing the clearing step. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or explain when fill is preferred over type, so it earns a 4 rather than a 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?

No guidance is given about when to use fill versus alternatives like type, select, or check. The mention of `use_secret` is parameter-specific, not usage direction. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling would be better for a given scenario.

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