desktop_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'focused field' prerequisite, but says nothing about how input is delivered (raw keystrokes vs. paste), whether special characters are supported, timing, or what happens if no field is focused.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple action, though it is arguably too sparse to be fully informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the tool is a simple single-parameter action. However, with no annotations and no behavioral or usage detail beyond focus, the definition is only minimally complete for an agent automating desktop input.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'text' parameter, so the schema documents nothing beyond the property name. The description merely restates 'type text' and adds no formatting, encoding, or length semantics to compensate for the gap.

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 states a specific verb ('type') and resource ('text') and its target ('the focused field'), which is enough to differentiate it from siblings like desktop_click, desktop_hotkey, and desktop_drag. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus desktop_hotkey or desktop_click, nor any stated prerequisites. The phrase 'focused field' hints that focus must be established first, but this is a constraint rather than usage routing.

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