browser_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and handles it well: it discloses real per-key events, real Shift key down/up, variable dwell and inter-key gaps, verification of the typed result, and error on mismatch. It does not mention side effects such as focusing or clearing existing content, but the core behavior is clearly and honestly described.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded and every clause earning its place. It gives the primary behavior, the human-like mechanism, and the verification/error behavior without repeating schema details or adding 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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key operational facts: how text is entered, what keystroke behavior to expect, and what happens on verification mismatch. Structural details like frameSelector and the one-of selector/ref constraint are handled by the schema, so the description is adequately complete, though it could say more about non-input/textarea targets.

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 71%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds little beyond 'text' and selector/ref targeting; it does not clarify timeout semantics, the deprecated delay behavior beyond what the schema says, or frameSelector mechanics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Type text into an element') and adds strong differentiators: human-like input, real per-key events, Shift handling for capitals/symbols, and verification against the request. This clearly separates it from siblings like browser_fill or browser_press_key, though it does not name an alternative 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?

The description implies when to use the tool—when human-like keystroke behavior or post-typing verification is needed—but it never states when to prefer browser_type over browser_fill, browser_press_key, or browser_iframe_fill, nor does it give any exclusion conditions. The usage context is inferable but not explicit.

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