Type text

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (modifies UI state) and openWorldHint=true (external side effects). The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide—no mention of typing speed, submission behavior, or error conditions. It neither contradicts nor significantly supplements the annotations.

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 a single short sentence, front-loaded with the key action. However, it is too brief to add sufficient value—it sacrifices completeness for conciseness, especially given the 0% parameter coverage.

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?

With 6 parameters, 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is incomplete. It fails to inform the agent about return behavior, failure modes, or how optional parameters change behavior, leaving a large gap for a typing action.

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 entirely for parameter meaning. It only mentions typing text into an editable element, but does not explain parameters like 'slowly' (typing speed), 'submit' (auto-submit after typing), or 'element' (alternative target). The agent gets no help understanding how to use these optional parameters.

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 'Type text into editable element' is clear about the verb (Type) and resource (text into editable element). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key, which could overlap in function, so it is adequate but not distinctive.

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 tool versus alternatives such as browser_fill_form (for form-level typing) or browser_press_key (for key-level input). The description does not mention prerequisites (e.g., element must be focused) or when not to use it, limiting decision support for the agent.

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