browser_act_type

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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the prerequisite escalation requirement, what the tool does (types text, optionally clears first), and what it returns (observed changes, not success/failure). It doesn't mention potential side effects like focus changes or validation triggers, but covers the essential operational context well.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement, a critical prerequisite warning, a well-organized parameter explanation, and a return value clarification. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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's complexity (interactive browser automation with prerequisites), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, prerequisites, all parameters, and return behavior. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values further, making this description complete for the tool's needs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It successfully explains all 5 parameters in the Args section, providing clear semantic meaning for each (session name, CSS selector, text content, justification, clear-first flag). The only minor gap is not explaining the format for the CSS selector parameter.

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 specific action ('Type text into an input element') and resource ('input element'), distinguishing it from siblings like browser_act_click (clicking) or browser_inspect_* (inspection tools). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that immediately communicates its 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'REQUIRES: Session must be escalated first via browser_session_escalate.' This provides clear prerequisites and distinguishes it from tools that might not require escalation, offering specific guidance on proper usage context.

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