udemy_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not say whether typing replaces existing text or appends to it, whether it places focus first, whether it triggers change/keyboard events, or whether it ever submits the form — all behaviors an agent needs to know before acting.

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 redundant restatement of the name. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool, though brevity is achieved partly by omitting needed context.

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 low-complexity tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers the basic mechanics. However, with zero annotations and no statement of replace-vs-append or submission behavior, an agent could still invoke it incorrectly in a form-filling flow.

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 only echoes the notion of a numbered field and adds no syntax, formatting, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action on a specific target ('type text into a numbered field on the current Udemy page'), which is distinct from the verbs used by siblings like udemy_read, udemy_click, and udemy_close. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling set, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than udemy_click or udemy_read, and no mention of the prerequisite workflow that the 'numbered field' concept implies (i.e., that element numbers come from a prior page read). The only usage hint, 'Field number from the last read,' lives in the schema, not the description.

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