jevbrow_type_text

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent action, and the description goes beyond them by warning that the state will change and should be re-inspected before further actions. This adds useful, non-redundant behavioral context, though it does not cover failure modes or validation requirements.

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 extremely compact: two short sentences that front-load the core operation and then deliver a meaningful behavioral warning. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations provide some safety profile, the description leaves the required action_id and fingerprint semantics unaddressed. With zero schema-level parameter documentation, the description is not sufficient for reliable invocation.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the three required parameters. 'Type' only weakly hints at 'text'; 'action_id' and 'fingerprint' are entirely unexplained, so an agent cannot infer how to populate the arguments correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('Type') and a specific target ('one observed field'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes this tool from siblings like click/select/scroll by focusing on text entry into an observed element.

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 when to use the tool (enter text into an observed field) and adds a useful follow-up instruction ('Inspect the new state before acting again'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some usage decisions to inference.

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