Type text into an input by its @eN ref; enter=true submits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | an @eN ref from browse_snapshot | |
| text | No | text to type | |
| enter | No | press Enter after typing | |
| browser_id | Yes | from browse_open |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds that enter=true submits the input, which is a behavioral disclosure beyond the annotations. However, it does not cover potential side effects like navigation or triggering events, nor does it address edge cases or error states.
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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and a key behavioral note without any wasted 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?
For a simple tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete, covering the main action and the important nuance about the enter parameter. It could mention error handling or fallback behavior, but that is not critical.
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?
The input schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds extra meaning by specifying that enter=true submits the form, which goes beyond the schema's 'press Enter after typing'.
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 text), the resource (an input identified by @eN ref), and includes a behavioral note about the enter parameter submitting. This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like browse_click and browse_fill.
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 implies usage when you have an @eN ref from browse_snapshot and want to type text, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternatives like browse_fill for filling forms.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many tools serve similar purposes (e.g., web_read vs browse_read, web_discover vs browse_discover, research vs web_search + browse). Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlap is notable.
Most tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., archive_message, browse_navigate). Minor deviations like standalone 'browse' and 'identity' are acceptable.
57 tools is very high for a single server, even with discover_tools. The broad domain coverage does not justify the count; it feels overloaded.
Covers identity, memory, browsing, human tasks, errands, messaging, and research comprehensively. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no explicit agent-to-agent contract tools), but core workflows are well-supported.