type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits key facts. It never mentions the allow_writes flag (default false) that appears to gate whether typing is permitted, nor whether existing text is replaced or appended, nor what happens on failure.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that gets to the action and the index source immediately, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is also the source of the coverage gaps.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description should explain the write-gating flag and typing semantics. As written, an agent cannot know whether typing will succeed or how the allow_writes parameter affects it.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters. The description partially explains 'index' (it comes from look()) and implies 'text', but says nothing about allow_writes, which is the most behaviorally consequential parameter and defaults to false.

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 (type) and target (element with this index), which is clearly distinct from click, select, and scroll. However the generic name 'type' and the lack of explicit contrast with the sibling 'press' leave some ambiguity about key-entry vs text-entry.

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 phrase 'using the numbers from the last look()' gives a useful workflow hint (call look() first to obtain indexes), but it never states when to use this over press or select, nor any prerequisites such as the element being focused or editable.

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