lichess_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls short: it does not say whether typing replaces or appends to existing text, whether focus is required first, whether it triggers submission, or what happens if the field number is stale. Only the fact that the target is on the 'current' page is disclosed.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no redundant wording. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why behavioral detail is missing.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. It omits what state results after typing (whether a re-read is needed to get updated field numbers), which is the main practical gap.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented ('Text to type', 'Field number from the last read'). The description adds no format, length, or escaping guidance beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (type) and target (a numbered field on the current Lichess page), which is clearly distinct from siblings like lichess_read and lichess_click. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 phrase 'numbered field' plus the schema's 'Field number from the last read' implies a read-then-type workflow, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus lichess_click or lichess_read, and no prerequisites such as a page needing to be open.

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