input_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose non-obvious mechanics — dispatching input/change so frameworks react, and optional form submission — which is valuable, but says nothing about failure modes (non-editable element, stale id), permission/frame constraints, or whether the action is reversible.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the framework-reactivity detail second. The closing clause about submitting the form slightly duplicates the submit parameter, which keeps it just short of full marks.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and event behavior but omits error handling, return value, and what happens when the id is stale or the element is not editable — gaps an agent would want filled.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the clear-then-replace behavior and the default for submit. The description adds no meaning beyond restating that the form may be submitted, so 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 ('Sets the value of an editable element') and identifies the element by its numeric id, which is enough to distinguish it from click_element and scroll_page among the siblings. It is clear, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the id comes from get_dom_tree, so the natural workflow is implied by the schema's parameter description. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of click_element (e.g. submit vs. press) or when not to use it for non-editable elements.

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