type

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it prefers a CDP direct connection and does not require the target window to be foregrounded. It says nothing, however, about what happens when no rich text box is focused or whether existing content is replaced or appended.

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?

Two short sentences with the action stated first and the transport detail second; nothing is padded. The CDP sentence is implementation-flavored but still operationally relevant, so it 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?

With no output schema, the description should say what a successful or failed injection looks like, and it does not. It also omits the precondition failure mode (no focused rich text input) and whether injected text replaces or extends existing content—both important for a low-idempotency write 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both `text` and `force` are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about either parameter—notably it never explains the 'active guard' that `force` bypasses. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already carries the parameter semantics.

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 (inject) and a specific resource (the current rich text input box), which is enough to separate it from minimax_click (mouse) or minimax_key (keystrokes). It does not explicitly name any sibling to contrast with, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. An agent must infer from 'current rich text box' whether to prefer this over minimax_key or minimax_send_message, and '无需前台置顶' only hints at a window/activation trade-off rather than stating one.

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