strava_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden, yet it says nothing about what typing does to existing field contents, whether the text is submitted or merely entered, what happens if the element number is stale, or how failures are reported. For a tool that mutates browser page state, these are meaningful omissions.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly what leaves behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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?

The tool is simple (two required parameters, no output schema), but interaction with live page state means an agent needs to know the prerequisite of a prior read and what a successful or failed type looks like. Neither is covered, so the definition is under-specified for a UI-mutating tool with no annotations to fall back on.

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; the description only echoes the 'numbered field' concept already present in the element parameter. No additional meaning, format, or constraint is contributed beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource ('Type text into a numbered field') plus the operating scope ('the current Strava page'), which lets an agent distinguish it from strava_click and strava_read. It stops short of naming a sibling or explicitly contrasting with them, so it lands just below the top band.

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 on the current Strava page' implies the read-then-type workflow and that the page must already be open, but the description never states that prerequisite, nor when to choose strava_click or strava_read instead. Guidance is inferred rather than given.

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