input_text

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true). The description adds that the 'auto' method uses ADBKeyBoard and fails if not installed, and 'raw' is best-effort ASCII that can be intercepted. It does not disclose that restore_ime may change the IME or what happens to existing text when clear is false.

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 concise, with two sentences that deliver the core purpose and key method details upfront. No fluff or redundant information is present.

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 5 parameters, destructive behavior, and no schema descriptions, the description lacks details on critical parameters (clear, restore_ime) and does not mention the output or side effects beyond focusing. The agent would need additional knowledge to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only explains the 'method' parameter. It does not describe 'text' format, 'clear' behavior, 'device_id' usage, or 'restore_ime' purpose, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 'Type text into the focused field,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like tap, key_event, and clear_text by focusing on text 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?

The description provides guidance on selecting between 'auto' and 'raw' methods based on backend availability and reliability. However, it does not explicitly compare input_text to sibling tools like tap or key_event, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is preferred over alternatives.

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