type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one meaningful behavioral trait (char-by-char keyboard simulation), which differentiates it from paste_text. However, it omits important behavior such as whether text goes to the currently focused element, what happens if nothing is focused, and whether special characters are handled literally.

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 stating exactly what the tool does with no filler or redundancy. Every word 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description plus schema covers the basic invocation. However, it leaves out the critical targeting context that the text is typed into the active/focused element and the expected behavior when no focus is present, so an agent may misuse it without consulting additional tools or docs.

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 coverage is 50%: delay is documented but the required text parameter has no schema description. The description clarifies that text is the string to type, and the tool itself names the parameter, but it adds no further semantics like encoding, newline handling, or whether delay is applied uniformly.

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 action (type), object (text), and method (char by char via keyboard). This distinguishes it from siblings like paste_text (one-shot paste) and humanize_type (humanized delays) even without naming them.

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 guidance is provided about when to use type_text instead of alternatives such as paste_text, fill, humanize_type, or press_key. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions; an agent would have to infer usage from the name and one-line description.

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