填写输入

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool clears existing content before filling, triggers input and change events, and may cause validation or submission logic. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool, though it doesn't discuss failure modes or edge cases.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core action ('Clear and fill'), then specifies targeting and events, and ends with a permission note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 is complete for a simple fill tool: it covers purpose, targeting, clearing behavior, event triggering, and potential side effects. The schema documents parameters (including timeout). The lack of an output schema and annotations is offset by the explicit behavioral notes. Minor gaps include error handling and return value behavior, but these are not critical for this tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The prose description adds little beyond the schema, as it merely restates the ref/selector targeting and the clearing behavior already documented in the value parameter. No additional semantic value is provided.

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: clear and fill input fields, textareas, or editable regions. It also specifies the targeting mechanism (snapshot ref or selector) and post-fill events. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like web_type, which is a minor gap.

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 implies usage for filling form fields and indicates that targeting is via snapshot reference or selector. It does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over web_type or web_select, nor does it mention exclusions. The context is sufficient for basic use but lacks comparative direction.

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