browser_type

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

The description doesn't contradict annotations (which indicate it's not read-only, is open-world, and destructive). While annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the target ('editable element'), which helps the agent understand this is for interactive typing rather than general text manipulation. However, it doesn't elaborate on potential side effects like triggering page events or form submissions.

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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward tool.

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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the action and target but doesn't explain what constitutes success/failure, how it interacts with page state, or potential error conditions. Given the annotations provide safety context and the schema covers parameters, the description meets basic requirements but lacks depth for a mutation 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all 5 parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (like explaining how 'element' and 'ref' work together or when to use 'slowly'). This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 'Type text into editable element' clearly states the action (type text) and target (editable element), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key, which might have overlapping functionality for text input scenarios.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of when to choose browser_type over browser_fill_form (for form filling), browser_press_key (for keyboard input), or other text-input related siblings, leaving the agent without contextual usage direction.

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