type_text

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 usefully discloses that the tool focuses the widget first and supports typing into the currently focused widget. However, it does not describe what happens to existing text, whether the text is inserted at the cursor, or what occurs if neither a widget_id nor a focused widget exists. This is acceptable but incomplete.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences carry the core behavior and the key alternative. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 simple 3-parameter typing tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main invocation paths: widget_id targeting and focused-widget targeting. The only real gap is the no-focus/no-widget error case, but the core operational context is otherwise sufficient.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying that widget_id can be omitted to use the focused widget and that special characters belong in press_key, not in text. However, the text parameter itself is only described by the tool name, and widget_id's relationship to other tools is left implicit.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Type text') and a specific resource ('a widget (focuses it first) or the currently focused widget'). It also differentiates from the sibling press_key by explicitly directing special characters elsewhere, so the agent can distinguish this tool without opening schemas.

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 gives an explicit when-not: 'For special characters use press_key instead.' This clearly routes the agent to the appropriate sibling in the common edge case, which is strong usage guidance for a text-input tool.

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