type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the keystroke-by-keystroke behavior and suggests humanization for delays, but lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., element must be focused), error handling, or whether it clears existing content. Adequate but minimal.

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 sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the primary purpose. Ideal conciseness.

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 has an output schema (unseen), so return values are covered. The description mentions 'focused element' as a precondition, but does not explain what happens if not focused, or edge cases like content length limits. Given complexity (3 params), it is minimally complete but has gaps in usage context.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining 'text' (what to type), 'humanize' (enables Gaussian delays), but does not explain 'mean_delay' or the exact behavior of humanize beyond delays. Partial compensation; baseline is not met fully.

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 action: 'Type into focused element (keystroke-by-keystroke).' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like paste_text or fill which may type in bulk. The verb and resource are specific.

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 some usage context by mentioning 'Use humanize for Gaussian delays,' implying when to enable that parameter. However, it does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives like paste_text or humanize_type. No when-not or alternative tool names are given.

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