Type text

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: a hard refusal on password/credential fields, the fact that clear_first destroys existing field content, and the focused-element default. The destructiveHint and non-idempotent hints are consistent with this, but return/error behavior is left to the output schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the safety constraint, then the modifier. Tight overall, though the clear_first sentence duplicates the schema description.

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 destructive mutation tool with an output schema and 75% schema coverage, the description covers the essential risk (secrets refusal) and the overwrite behavior. The required observation_id is undocumented in prose but is fully specified in the schema, so no critical gap remains.

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 75%, with ref, clear_first, and observation_id already described in the schema. The description largely restates those (ref default = focused field, clear_first empties the field) and adds no new syntax or constraints, so it sits at the baseline for a well-covered 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?

States a specific verb (type) and resource (text into a field ref or the focused field), which is enough to separate it from click, press_keys, and drag. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but the action is 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?

Explains the default target (focused field when ref is omitted) and gives a clear exclusion: it is refused for password and credential fields. No named alternatives (e.g. press_keys for special keys) are offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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