type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and reveals key behaviors: semantic location of the target, the editable-field requirement, and that the field is cleared before typing. It stops short of describing failure modes or edge cases, but the core side effect is explicit.

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 deliver the core action, the target/focus decision, and the clearing behavior without filler. The description is front-loaded and every sentence contributes.

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 is simple with an output schema and no annotations, and the description covers the main operational aspects: what is typed, how the field is selected, and the clearing side effect. It could add failure/error behavior for non-editable fields or a missing target, but it is largely adequate for selection and invocation.

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 documents text, device, and target at 75% coverage. The description adds meaning for target (semantic location, must be editable) and clarifies that the field is cleared, but it does not add value for device or the undocumented session_id parameter.

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,' giving a specific verb and resource that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like press_key or tap. It further defines the input mechanism (semantic target or currently focused field) and the clearing behavior.

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 conditional usage: use a semantic target when the field is not focused, or rely on the current focus when target is omitted. It also warns that the target must be an editable field, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like press_key.

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