type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool operates on the currently focused field and does not focus a field itself. It does not disclose what happens if no field is focused, whether existing text is overwritten, or how special characters are handled.

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 two short sentences with the core behavior front-loaded and the prerequisite stated immediately after. There is no filler or redundant content; every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations, the description leaves a significant gap around the optional device parameter and how the tool selects a target device. It also lacks failure-mode context, such as what happens when nothing is focused. The output schema exists, so return values are not a gap, but this is still incomplete for safe agent invocations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'text' is the content to be typed, but it says nothing about the 'device' parameter, which remains ambiguous in a multi-device context. The description provides little value beyond what the parameter name alone already suggests.

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 action ('Type text') and a clear target ('the field that is currently focused'), and it adds a prerequisite: tap a text field first. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the wording is enough to distinguish typing from tapping or browser-specific typing.

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 implies the correct usage context: it should be used when a text field is focused, and the user is told to tap a field first. However, it does not say when to prefer this over related tools like tap_text or chrome_type, nor does it give exclusions for when the field is not ready.

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