type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses that spaces and shell metacharacters are auto-escaped, which affects how callers pass input, but omits whether text replaces or appends to existing content and what happens when no field is focused.

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?

Three short imperative sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the prerequisite and the escaping caveat. No filler.

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 two-parameter, no-output tool, the description covers the action, the prerequisite step, and an important input-handling behavior. Only edge cases (no focused field, replace vs append) are missing.

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 coverage is 50% — the required 'text' parameter has no schema description. The description partially compensates by noting escape handling, but says nothing about expected text format, length limits, or newline behavior, so it adds only marginal meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and target: 'Type into the currently focused text field.' This clearly separates it from tap_text (which taps an element) by scoping it to an already-focused field, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

'Tap the field first' gives an actionable prerequisite that tells the agent the required prior step, implicitly routing it to tap/tap_text. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance (e.g., what to do if no field is focused).

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