type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool focuses the element first, but does not clarify whether it replaces existing text, how element targeting works when element_id is null, or what events/side effects occur. Major behavioral ambiguities remain.

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, sentence-length statement with no filler. It front-loads the core action and parenthetically adds a behavioral detail, making efficient use of space.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief to be complete. It lacks essential details about text replacement behavior, element targeting (including null semantics), and possible errors or return values. The output schema exists but does not compensate for missing usage context.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'text' indirectly but never explains element_id or the role of focus in parameter handling. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no detail beyond the schema, leaving null/default semantics unclear.

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 resource ('input element'), and adds the behavior that it focuses the element first. This distinguishes it from siblings like click, press_key, and scroll.

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 usage context (typing text into input elements) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as press_key or click. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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