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

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint and destructiveHint. The description adds context by mentioning 'Side effect: keystrokes on the remote desktop.' It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral info beyond the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, prerequisite, and alternative recommendation. No unnecessary words.

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 relative simplicity, the description covers the main function, prerequisites, side effects, and when to use alternatives. It does not mention error handling, but the output schema may cover return information. Overall, it provides sufficient context for agent selection.

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%, and the description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the two parameters. The description repeats that text is 'Literal text to type (not a key combo)' which matches the schema.

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 action ('Type a Unicode string'), the target ('currently focused control'), and method ('via native input'). It distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not click first and recommending input.send_actions for form fills.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: after focusing the field, and when not to use it: for form fills, prefer input.send_actions. It also names specific alternatives (input.click_target, input.send_actions).

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