Type Text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether existing text is replaced or appended, how the target device is chosen, whether text is committed/sent, or what happens if no field is focused. Only the bare action is conveyed.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than meaningful concision.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and an undocumented 'clear' flag, the description is far too thin for a mutation-style UI control tool. It omits the device/focus prerequisites an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% across 3 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The 'clear' parameter (whether to erase existing content before typing) and 'device' targeting are fully undocumented in both places, leaving an agent to guess at their meaning.

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 and target ('Type into the focused field'), which is a clear action. However, it gives no differentiation from siblings like 'key' (which also inputs text/keys) or 'tap', so an agent cannot confidently choose between them. Purpose is understandable but underspecified.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus 'key', 'tap', or 'tap_node', nor any prerequisite such as first focusing a field. The phrase 'focused field' faintly implies a precondition but is never stated as an instruction.

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