safari_native_type

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

No annotations provided; description fully discloses behavior: uses OS-level clipboard paste (CGEvent Cmd+V), works with ProseMirror/Slate/Draft.js, saves/restores clipboard, no focus stealing. Explains why it differs from safari_fill.

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?

Every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with action and purpose, then explains mechanics, behavior, and comparisons. No fluff 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?

No output schema, but description explains the paste event and framework state update. Mentions subsequent pressing Enter. Slightly incomplete as it doesn't state if any return value is provided, but for an action tool this is acceptable.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema (e.g., mentions selector/ref for focusing first), but baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already describes parameters adequately.

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?

Clearly states 'Insert text into ANY editor via OS-level clipboard paste' and distinguishes from sibling safari_fill by explaining the difference in DOM vs paste pipeline. Specific use cases like Discord and Slack are given.

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 says when to use ('Use for Discord, Slack, and any editor where safari_fill works visually but the content isn't really there when you try to submit') and contrasts with safari_fill. Also mentions that after native_type, pressing Enter via safari_native_keyboard will submit properly.

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