safari_native_type

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

Discloses key behavioral traits: uses Cmd+V, saves/restores clipboard, no focus stealing, goes through real paste pipeline. Lacks discussion of error handling (e.g., invalid selector) or prerequisites, but covers core behavior well.

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?

Well-structured with clear front-loading of purpose and key differentiators. Slightly lengthy but each sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly.

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?

No output schema, and description does not specify return value. Also missing setup preconditions (e.g., page loaded). However, covers major context for typical use.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal value beyond schema: it mentions selector and ref are for focusing, but schema already says that. No additional semantics.

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 tool inserts text via OS-level clipboard paste, targeting Safari editors. It distinguishes from safari_fill by explaining the native paste pipeline and gives specific use cases (Discord, Slack).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool versus safari_fill: for editors where safari_fill paints visually but content doesn't persist. Also explains that pressing Enter via safari_native_keyboard works after using this tool.

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