type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the focus prerequisite and the newline-to-return behavior, but says nothing about whether text is appended to existing content, what happens when no field is focused, or any error/return behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its prerequisite, then the one formatting gotcha. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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 4-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the schema already covers device selection and the submit/deleteCount options, and the description covers the focus precondition and newline behavior. The main remaining gap is append-vs-replace semantics, which is only hinted at by deleteCount.

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 75% and the schema documents device, submit, and deleteCount well. The description adds genuine semantics the schema lacks: the text parameter's newline handling ("Use \n for return"), which is non-obvious and affects how the agent constructs the payload.

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?

Specific verb (type) plus resource (focused text field), which cleanly separates it from tap/tap_element (used to focus) and from press_button. It doesn't name a sibling explicitly, but the parenthetical prerequisite does the routing work implicitly.

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 a concrete precondition for correct invocation, effectively pointing the agent at tap_element/tap before calling this. No explicit when-not cases or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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