type_text

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that background targeting does NOT focus the window and uses WM_CHAR, and it notes that win_set_control_text is more reliable for edit controls. It also states the return value. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a focused BACKGROUND TARGETING section. It is concise and every sentence adds meaningful guidance, though the Args/Returns formatting could be slightly tighter.

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 description covers the essential behaviors, includes return value information, and gives an alternative tool pointer. It does not explain the confirm_focus_disruption requirement or edge cases, but given the output schema exists and the description is relatively complete for a typing tool, this is acceptable.

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?

The description adds value by explaining the purpose of hwnd/window_title and mentioning interval and target, but it does not mention all parameters (display, confirm_focus_disruption). The JSON schema already provides detailed descriptions for every parameter, so the description is supplementary but not fully comprehensive. Given the low schema coverage signal, this is adequate with gaps.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Type a string of text into the currently focused window/control') and differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning background targeting and recommending win_set_control_text for edit controls, which distinguishes it from win_send_keys and press_keys.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use background targeting (set hwnd or window_title) and gives an alternative (win_set_control_text) with a condition ('For edit controls'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with press_keys or win_send_keys, so it lacks a complete exclusion matrix.

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