browser_type

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate these. However, it adds no additional behavioral context beyond the bare action, such as whether typing replaces existing content, triggers events, or requires focus. The 'slowly' parameter's purpose is documented only in the schema, not the description. This is a mutation tool with no extra transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It communicates the core action efficiently. It could be considered under-specified for the tool's complexity, but conciseness is about minimalism and structure, and this is appropriately succinct.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and only annotations for safety, the description leaves out critical context for correct usage: when to use it versus sibling tools, what constitutes a valid target, and any side effects. The schema covers parameters well, but the description does not guide an agent on how to integrate this action into a browser-automation workflow. The absence of usage guidance makes it incomplete for a complex, mutation-capable tool.

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 every parameter (text, slowly, submit, target, element) has a meaningful description. The tool description itself adds no parameter information beyond the schema, but since the schema is thorough, the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not hinder understanding of parameters.

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 'Type text into editable element' clearly states a specific verb ('type') and resource ('editable element'), which distinguishes it from most sibling tools like browser_navigate or browser_take_screenshot. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from closely related tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key, which also involve text entry. Still, the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites (e.g., needing an element reference from a snapshot), or why one might choose this over browser_fill_form or browser_press_key. The distinction is left entirely to the agent's inference from parameter names.

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