Append text to the TUI prompt input field, optionally targeting a specific project directory, to programmatically build or extend a prompt before submission.
Append text to the TUI prompt input field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| directory | No | Project directory to target. Optional; defaults to the server default project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the action. It doesn't disclose whether a TUI must be running, whether the append works on an empty/active prompt, or what happens on failure, leaving meaningful behavior undocumented.
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 zero waste that states the action and target immediately.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the workflow relationship with submit/clear and any environment prerequisites an agent needs to invoke it 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?
Schema coverage is 50%: 'directory' is documented in the schema while 'text' is not. The description only confirms that 'text' is the appended content and adds no format, length, or 'directory' semantics, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clear verb (append) and resource (TUI prompt input field), so the agent knows exactly what action is performed. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling tools opencode_tui_submit_prompt or opencode_tui_clear_prompt, but 'append' implies it differs from submit/clear.
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 intended use is only implied: build up text in the prompt field, likely before submitting. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of the submit_prompt/clear_prompt alternatives that complete the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.