type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool requires focus and refuses to type into password fields, which are meaningful behavioral traits not conveyed by the schema. However, it does not describe other aspects like whether text is appended or replaces existing content, or if it triggers input events, so it's not a full disclosure.

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 concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that states the action and an additional clause that highlights an important limitation. Every word earns its place, with no superfluous information.

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?

The tool is simple (one string parameter, no output schema), and the description covers its core purpose and a key behavioral constraint. It lacks details on error handling or exact insertion behavior, but for this simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has a single 'text' parameter with no description, and the description adds no extra semantic value beyond restating that it types text. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should clarify parameter nuances (e.g., newline handling, special characters), but it does not, leaving the parameter to rely on its name alone.

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 tool's function: 'Type text into the focused element.' It identifies the resource (focused element), the verb (type), and adds a distinguishing restriction about password fields, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like fill or press.

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 implies usage for typing into the currently focused element and provides an explicit exclusion (refused when password field has focus), but it does not mention alternative tools or explicit guidance on when to choose this over siblings like fill or press.

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