chrome_type_text

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden and discloses the label search order (label 'for' attribute, parent label, aria-label, placeholder) and error behavior (returns actionable error with suggestions). This gives useful behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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: the first states the primary function and key feature, the second adds search order and error handling. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

Given the simple two-parameter tool and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage preference, search algorithm, and error handling. It could mention whether typing replaces existing text or waits for element, but for this scope it is reasonably 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 input schema already describes both parameters fully (100% coverage). The description adds value by detailing the search order for the label parameter, which is not fully captured in the schema. This goes beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool types text into an input field identified by its label, and explicitly frames it as a semantic alternative to chrome_type. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like chrome_type and chrome_execute_script.

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 explicit guidance to prefer this over chrome_execute_script for form filling, and indicates it is a semantic alternative to chrome_type. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context of labeling suggests a clear use case.

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