weezevent_type

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It never says whether typing appends to or replaces existing field content, whether the field must be focused first, whether typing triggers submit/validation events, or what happens with an out-of-range element number — all material for a no-undo mutation on a live page.

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, ideal for a simple two-parameter action. It is efficient but so terse that it sacrifices the behavioral detail the tool needs.

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 mutation tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, the description says nothing about preconditions (a prior read), side effects, or failure modes such as an invalid element index. The structured fields cover parameters adequately, but the behavioral gaps leave an agent guessing how to invoke it safely.

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%, with both parameters documented inline (text as the string to type, element as the field number from the last read). The description adds only that the field is 'numbered' and lives on the current page, which the schema already conveys, 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 ('Type text') and a specific resource ('a numbered field on the current Weezevent page'), which is enough to distinguish it from weezevent_click, weezevent_read, and weezevent_open based on verb alone. It never explicitly names a sibling or contrast, so it lands just short of a 5.

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 'on the current Weezevent page' and the schema's 'Field number from the last read' imply a read-then-type workflow, but the description itself offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite ordering, and no exclusions (e.g., when to use click or guide instead).

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