pbi_type

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses target resolution order, focus behavior, abort on focus failure, clear and submit mechanics, return value shape, and a clear warning about state mutation. No contradictions.

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?

Description is concise and front-loaded with purpose. It efficiently packs technical details, though could benefit from structured bullets for clarity. No wasted sentences.

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?

Covers purpose, target resolution, clear/submit behaviors, return value, and mutation warning. Missing some edge cases (e.g., interplay of clear and submit, behavior with empty text) but given complexity, it is largely complete for effective 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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains clear, submit, selector, and ariaLabel behaviors in context. The required 'text' parameter is obvious from tool name but could be more explicit about appending vs replacing. Overall, adds significant meaning beyond bare schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool types text into editable elements via trusted keyboard input. It specifies target element types and resolution order, distinguishing it from sibling tools like pbi_click which handle clicks.

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?

Usage is implied by purpose but no explicit comparison to alternatives or conditions for use. The warning about mutating report state provides some context for when to use (testing), but does not state when not to use or suggest alternative tools.

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