type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the single-element scope and that submit:true presses Enter, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, settle/retry behavior, or side effects of typing. Adequate but thin for an un-annotated mutating tool.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action, the submit modifier, and the alternative routing. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 11 parameters but a 91%-covered schema and no output schema, the description needn't explain params or return values. It covers purpose and routing well; the only gap is behavioral context (settle window, error behavior) for a tool with no annotations, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 91%, so the schema already documents ref, find, clear, expect, submit, real, selector, tabId, spaceId and snapshotId. The description only restates the submit behavior, adding no syntax or format meaning beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 (type) and resource (input/textarea/contenteditable), plus a hard scope constraint (ONE element, by ref). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings fill and act, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit routing: 'More fields coming? Use `fill` or `act`', which names the alternatives and the condition selecting them. It is clear when to reach for a sibling, though it offers no explicit when-not guidance for a single field beyond the word 'ONE'.

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