type_into

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the locate, tap/focus, and type sequence, plus the fallback behavior. However, it does not say whether existing field text is replaced or appended, whether the field must be visible, or what happens when no editable field is found.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action, the process, and the key parameter disambiguation in two sentences. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence contributes essential 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 core behavior is covered, but the tool has 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations. Missing guidance on index and serial, as well as overwrite-versus-append behavior, leaves significant gaps for an agent trying to invoke this correctly in varied scenarios.

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 usefully explains that text is the text to type and that field_text/resource_id/class_name target the field, not the text. However, it completely omits the index and serial parameters, leaving their meaning and usage unknown to the agent.

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 verb and resource: it writes text into a given field by finding it, tapping/focusing it, then typing the text in one call. It also clarifies that field_text/resource_id/class_name identify the target field, not the text. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like type_text or fill_form, so it misses the highest bar.

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 useful usage context: it explains the one-call find-tap-type flow and the fallback to the first editable field when no filter is given. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as type_text, paste_clipboard, or fill_form, nor when not to use it.

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