type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states that the field is cleared before typing, a critical side effect, and that a semantic target must be editable, which is a useful prerequisite. It also explains the two modes (with/without target), adding transparency. It does not cover error conditions or device-specific behaviors, but the output schema likely handles return details.

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 consists of two sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: the first states the core action, the second explains usage variations and a key behavioral trait. There is no redundancy or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 relatively simple tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary action, both ways to identify the input field, and the clearing behavior. It does not address edge cases like no focused field, but those are likely captured by the output schema. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in common scenarios.

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 covers all parameters, but the description enhances the `target` parameter by explaining that it locates the field semantically and must be editable, and the `text` parameter by noting the field is cleared first. It also clarifies the fallback to the focused field when `target` is omitted. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though the `device` parameter is not mentioned, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 opens with 'Type text into an input field,' which directly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like tap, swipe, and press_key by focusing on text entry. The additional details about target and focused field refine the scope without ambiguity.

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 provides clear situational guidance on when to use the `target` parameter versus relying on the currently focused field. It states that with a target, the field must be editable and is located semantically; without it, the focused field is used. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but siblings perform distinct actions, so confusion is unlikely. The absence of explicit 'when not to use' phrasing prevents a perfect score.

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