Tap

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

Excellent disclosure beyond annotations: auto-detection logic for 5 editor types, return value semantics ('Returns the current value'), specific fallback strategies using execCommand/native APIs, and side effects (validation toasts).

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?

Three information-dense sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with core action, followed by return value/fallback, ending with error checking—every clause earns its place.

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?

Strong coverage given no output schema—documents return value, error handling via toasts, and complex auto-detection behavior. Deduction for missing parameter documentation which is critical given 0% schema coverage.

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 fails to compensate adequately. While 'text' is mentioned explicitly, 'selector' format (CSS? XPath?) is undocumented, and neither parameter's constraints/encoding are specified.

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?

Opens with specific verb+resource ('Type text into an input') and distinguishes from sibling tap_eval by explicitly naming it as a fallback when the typed value doesn't match 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?

Provides clear fallback guidance ('try tap.eval') when auto-detection fails, and directs to inspect.toasts for validation errors. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' exclusions, but context is clear.

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