safari_clear_field

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 only states the action without explaining side effects (e.g., does it trigger input/change events? Does it clear selection? Does it work on contenteditable? Does it require focus?). The description does not mention whether the operation is reversible or what the return value is. This is a significant gap for an action tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, unambiguous sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple action tool, front-loading the core purpose. 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 tool that clears an input, the description covers the essential action and the schema covers parameters. However, it omits behavioral details that could affect correct invocation, such as whether events are fired, whether it works on all input types, and what the tool returns. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor gap, but for an agent it could lead to incorrect assumptions about side effects.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters: selector is described as 'CSS selector of the input' and receipt as 'Tab receipt from safari_new_tab — pins this call to that tab (survives reconnects/subagents)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema states. With high schema coverage, a baseline 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 states a clear verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('an input field'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes itself from siblings like safari_fill (which sets a value) and safari_press_key (keyboard actions), but does not explicitly name alternatives. The intent is clear enough for an agent to select it for clearing fields, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used to empty a field before typing, nor does it exclude cases like contenteditable elements or fields that require specific event firing. With many sibling tools like safari_fill, safari_type_text, and safari_press_key, the lack of any usage context leaves the agent to infer when clearing is appropriate.

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