safari_native_type

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

The description provides detailed behavioral information: it performs OS-level clipboard paste via CGEvent, saves and restores the user's clipboard, does not steal focus, and ensures that subsequent Enter presses work because the framework state matches the DOM. Since no annotations are provided, this description fully covers the behavioral transparency burden.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core action. While it contains several sentences, each adds value (mechanism, usage guidance, clipboard behavior). It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the task, though a minor reduction could make it even more concise.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (OS-level clipboard paste with state implications) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains the mechanism, when to use it, clipboard handling, and the effect on subsequent form submission.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about parameter usage (e.g., selector and ref are used to focus the editor first) but does not provide new semantic details beyond the schema descriptions themselves.

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's purpose: 'Insert text into ANY editor via OS-level clipboard paste' and distinguishes it from safari_fill by noting that safari_fill manipulates DOM directly and can break framework state. It also specifies target editors like Discord and Slack, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: 'Use for Discord, Slack, and any editor where safari_fill works visually but the content isn't 'really there' when you try to submit.' It also contrasts with safari_fill, providing alternatives and clarifying the appropriate context.

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