browser_type

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

Annotations already provide `destructiveHint: true` indicating mutation. The description adds value by naming the resource type ('editable element') and, via schema, mentions 'slowly' for triggering key handlers, but does not broaden behavioral disclosure beyond what is in the schema and annotations.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, but annotations set a clear safety profile. The description, combined with exhaustive schema, covers basic usage. However, it does not explain how the element parameter differs from target or what happens when an element is non-editable, leaving moderate gaps for a parameter-rich 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%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds meaning by narrowing the context to 'editable element' (helpful for target/element), but doesn't explain parameter interplay (e.g., effect of slowly + submit or target vs element disambiguation). Baseline 3 is correct.

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' uses a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('editable element'), directly stating the tool's action. It's clear on its own and distinguishes well from siblings like browser_press_key (which presses a single key) and browser_click.

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 itself provides no guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like browser_press_key or browser_find. The sibling names and schema give some context, but the description does not explicitly state when typing versus pressing a key or filling a form is appropriate.

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