browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real traits: real keyboard events, an automatic focus click when ref/x,y are supplied, and a hard refusal on password/2FA/card/account fields tied to a {sensitive} state. It omits failure behavior and whether a field must exist before typing.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the focus behavior, then the safety exclusion. Nothing is repeated from the schema and no sentence is filler.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the safety and focus semantics are the critical missing pieces and both are covered. Minor gaps remain around result behavior and error cases, though the snapshot flag is already documented in the schema.

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 coverage is 88%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by explaining the coupling between ref/x,y and an implicit focus click — context the schema cannot express. Text and the remaining flags are left to 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?

States a specific verb and mechanism ('Escribe texto con eventos de teclado reales'), which cleanly separates it from browser_press, browser_click, and browser_select. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied 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?

Gives a concrete precondition ('Si das ref/x,y primero hace clic para enfocar') and an explicit routing rule for the sensitive-field case to browser_request_human. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over browser_press or browser_select for non-text inputs.

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