type_text

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, lowering the bar. The description adds the meaningful detail that existing content may be cleared before typing and that Enter can be pressed after, though it does not warn that clearing wipes prior text or what happens when the selector matches nothing.

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?

A single compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded and the modifiers following. Nothing extraneous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a 4-parameter low-coverage tool the description is thin: nothing about selector resolution, failure modes, or typing behavior in a stealth-oriented browser suite.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains two of four parameters (clear-first, submit-Enter) at a behavioral level. However selector format and the text argument are left entirely to the schema, and 'optionally clear first' undersells that the schema default is clear=true.

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 an input) with two named optional behaviors, which is enough to distinguish it from click, fill_form, and press_key. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage context is only implied by 'into an input'. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over fill_form (bulk form fill) or press_key, nor any stated prerequisite such as the element needing focus or being visible.

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