charlotte_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the return type (full page representation) but does not disclose that typing may clear existing content by default, can trigger events, or requires the element to be visible/interactable. The default clearing behavior (clear_first: true) is only discoverable through the schema, not the description.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds a useful behavioral note about the return representation, fitting the appropriate structure for a simple 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?

Despite having 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but sufficient to understand the core action. The schema covers parameter semantics, and the description states the return type. However, it lacks context about default behaviors (e.g., clearing the field, pressing Enter) that would help an agent anticipate side effects, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add meaning beyond the schema, but the schema parameters are well-documented with descriptions for each field. Since the description does not need to repeat schema details, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('input element'), and explicitly notes it returns the full page representation after typing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like charlotte_click, charlotte_select, and charlotte_submit, which perform different actions.

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 the tool should be used when text needs to be entered into an input element, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. No guidance is given for distinguishing between typing and using charlotte_submit or charlotte_click for form interactions.

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