browser_type

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds that the selector should target input, textarea, or contenteditable, and that it returns updated page state, but it does not mention whether existing text is replaced, whether it waits for the element, or how it handles special characters.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences. The first states the primary function, and the second adds target constraints and return info. No unnecessary words.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the core action, target constraints, and return value. The output schema exists, so return details don't need to be in the description. However, it could mention behavior like replacing vs. appending text or focusing the element.

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 schema lacks any parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'selector' should reference supported element types and 'text' is the text to type, but it does not define the selector format or whether text is inserted as-is.

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 uses a specific verb ('Type') with a clear resource ('input field on the current page'), and the constraint on target elements distinguishes it from sibling actions like browser_click or browser_hover. It clearly communicates the tool's function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like fill_form or browser_press_key, but it does indicate it operates on the current page and advises on valid target elements. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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