type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a valuable behavior—'Updates React/Vue/Angular state automatically'—which implies proper event dispatch for frameworks. However, it omits other default behaviors such as clearFirst=true and keystroke delay simulation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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?

The description is two sentences, starting with a clear action and resource. Each sentence adds a distinct value: the targeting mechanism and the framework state update. No wasted words.

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 has moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description covers the primary action, input identification, and a key behavioral guarantee, which is sufficient for basic usage. It does not mention default clear/delay behaviors, but those are already in the schema, so the description is fairly complete.

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?

The schema already describes all parameters with 100% coverage, so the bar is lowered. The description adds the 'preferred' qualifier for id over selector, which is not present in the schema and guides the agent on parameter precedence. It does not add format or syntax details, but the schema already provides those.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Type text into input' and clearly states the two targeting mechanisms (APOM ID preferred or CSS selector), which distinguishes it from sibling input tools like click, pressKey, and selectOption.

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 description gives a clear preference for APOM ID over CSS selector, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like pressKey or selectOption. The intended usage is implied by the verb 'type' and the framework update note, but no exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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