browser_type

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations. It merely states 'editable element' and does not disclose consequences like replacing existing text, triggering key handlers, or submission behavior. No contradiction with annotations, but also no added value.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately sized and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what happens after typing (e.g., whether focus is required, whether existing content is cleared, or how the 'submit' parameter affects behavior). Most of the burden falls on parameter descriptions, but the overall tool context remains incomplete.

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 100%, with all five parameters having descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 the tool's function: 'Type text into editable element' uses a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('editable element'). It is not a tautology and is understandable on its own, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when a different tool might be more appropriate. Usage is only implied by the tool's name and description.

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