ui_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and does a single bare sentence: it does not say whether typing appends to or replaces existing content, what happens if no field is focused, or what the response looks like. For a device-mutating UI action with zero annotation coverage, that is a significant gap.

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 no filler; the verb and target appear immediately. Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 3-parameter input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out failure modes, focus prerequisites, and how typing interacts with the clear/enter flags. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral envelope of a UI device action remains undocumented.

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 100%, so all three parameters (text, clear, enter) are already documented in the schema, including the Unicode caveat. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the 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?

States a specific verb (type) and target (focused field), making the action unambiguous. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling ui_key or clarifies the relationship to ui_tap, which an agent would need when deciding how to enter text.

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?

"Focused field" implies the precondition that a field must already have focus, so the agent can infer tapping first. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer ui_key for special keys, and no note on when clear/enter should be set.

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