set_element_value

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe operation. The description adds the UIA pattern context, but does not mention prerequisites (e.g., element must be enabled, visible) or potential side effects. It adds some value beyond annotations but not extensive detail.

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 a single, focused sentence of 14 words. It immediately conveys the core action and mechanism with examples. No extraneous words; every phrase 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's simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and mechanism. It could briefly mention return behavior or error conditions, but is largely complete for an agent to understand the tool's role.

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% (both parameters described in schema). The description does not add additional semantic information about parameter values, formats, or constraints. Baseline is 3 due to high schema coverage, and no extra info is provided.

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 tool's core action ('Set the value of an element'), the specific UI automation pattern used ('UIA Value or RangeValue pattern'), and concrete examples ('sliders, spin boxes'). This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like 'set_value' or 'click_element'.

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 provides strong cues about when to use the tool by mentioning the specific patterns and examples. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for standard input fields where 'send_keys' may be more appropriate) or mention of alternatives.

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