type_text

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

Discloses that background typing uses WM_CHAR without focusing the window, and that for edit controls win_set_control_text is more reliable. Annotations are minimal (no contradictions), and description adds useful behavioral context.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. Main purpose is stated first. Could be slightly more concise, but all sentences add value.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return value explanation is sufficient. Description covers main use case, background targeting, and alternatives. For a tool with nested parameters, it is fairly complete.

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?

While the input schema already has detailed descriptions for each property (e.g., text, hwnd, interval), the description adds a holistic explanation of background targeting and the relationship between parameters. It clarifies the overall usage pattern beyond individual property docs.

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 the currently focused window/control, and distinguishes from siblings like win_set_control_text (more reliable for edit controls) and press_keys (key combinations). It also covers background targeting via hwnd/window_title.

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?

Explicitly states when to use background targeting (hwnd/window_title) vs foreground, recommends win_set_control_text for edit controls, and mentions confirm_focus_disruption for foreground typing after consent. Provides clear alternatives.

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