type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: value redaction from the audit log, submit-on-typing suppression and the ``blocked_by_policy`` outcome, a fail-fast error taxonomy (``not_found``, ``hidden``, ``disabled``, ``timeout``, ``element_not_actionable``, ``page_closed``), timeout defaults/limits, and automatic native-dialog handling surfaced under ``dialogs``.

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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence and keeps every subsequent sentence behaviorally relevant rather than padding. The parenthetical clauses are dense and occasionally hard to parse, but there is little wasted text.

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 format needn't be described, and the description still covers errors, timeouts, dialog handling, and audit redaction. It is nearly complete except for the unexplained ``reason`` parameter, which an agent would have to infer.

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 0%, so the description must document all six parameters. It meaningfully explains ``selector``, ``value``, ``submit``, and ``timeout_ms`` (including the 10000 default and 30000 max), and implies ``confirm`` via 'asks for permission to send the form'. The ``reason`` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving a real gap given zero schema coverage.

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 resource: 'Fill ``selector`` with ``value``', which immediately identifies it as a form-field text-entry tool. It implicitly differentiates from siblings like ``press_key`` and ``click`` by naming them, but never clarifies vs. ``set_editor`` or ``select_option``, which an agent could plausibly confuse with text input.

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?

Gives conditional usage: set ``submit=true`` to press Enter, and routes the agent to ``navigate`` when a page's submit-on-typing behavior is blocked by policy. However, it offers no guidance on choosing this tool over ``set_editor`` or ``select_option`` for other editable widgets.

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