glass_set_value

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

The description discloses the underlying mechanism: direct write where possible, otherwise tap-clear-type, up to three a11y reads, and confirmation. It explains error conditions and the meaning of each error variant, including the decision implication ('write again', 'do not write again'). This goes far beyond the annotations, which are all false and offer no behavioral signal.

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 very dense and front-loads the core operation well. All sentences carry meaningful information, especially the error-handling guidance. However, the long run-on paragraphs about error variants and next moves are harder to scan, and a bulleted structure would improve readability without losing content.

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 output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers prerequisities, performanc behavior, error conditions, recovery tactics, return modes, and relation to glass_do. It doesn't explicitly state what a successful result looks like when return is omitted, but the confirmation read-back and error semantics make successful invocatoin inferable. This is a small gap in an otherwise thorough definition.

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 the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that id comes from glass_a11y_snapshot and repeats return option semantics, but it does not add meaningfully new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents. It adds selectively behavioral context, especially around errors, but not enough to raise the score above baseline.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set an editable element's value' and anchors the target via '#id from glass_a11y_snapshot'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like glass_type, glass_click, and glass_do. It is not a tautology and names the batching alternary glass_do at the end.

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?

It tells the agent to pick the element's id from glass_a11y_snapshot, so the intended pre-recondition is clear. It explicitly says to use glass_do when two or more next actions/waits are known, which is useful routing guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with glass_type, but the semantic 'set value' versus raw typing is reasonably implied.

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