desktop_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses important behaviors: verification of exact readback, preservation of Unicode/LF/tabs without submitting, mode semantics (insert vs. replace), and the caveat that readback does not confirm saving/commit. This is substantial and honest, though it omits error handling or permission requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by mode semantics and caveats. It is dense but every sentence adds value—no fluff. The structure flows logically from core action to edge cases, making it easy to scan.

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 complexity (modes, edge cases, commit caveat), the description covers key aspects: how it interacts with controls, what it preserves, and its limitations. It does not address error scenarios or prerequisites (e.g., element focus), but given no output schema and only three parameters, it is reasonably complete.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explicitly defines the 'mode' parameter ('Insert replaces the selection; replace changes the entire field') and indirectly explains 'text' via grapheme boundaries. However, 'element_id' is not described beyond being an identifier, and no parameter-level details are given for text formatting or length limits.

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 tool's function: 'Type into an editable element and verify exact readback.' It specifies the verb (type) and resource (editable element), and adds a verification aspect. It distinguishes from siblings like desktop_paste or desktop_set_value by emphasizing native input and readback verification, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 contextual conditions (e.g., 'Owned HTML fields require complete grapheme boundaries') but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as desktop_type_secret or desktop_set_value. It lacks exclusions or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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