type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key destructive trait: content is replaced unless append is true, and submit triggers an enter/send action. It omits failure behavior (e.g., no focused field, invalid element id) and any confirmation of what the result looks like.

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 with zero filler, and the default behavior (replace) is front-loaded ahead of the modifiers. Every sentence conveys information the agent needs.

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 4-parameter UI input tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers target selection, replacement semantics, and the submit side effect, which is close to enough. Missing only error/edge-case behavior for locating a field.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented at the structured level, setting a baseline of 3. The prose restates append and submit meaning but adds no syntax, ordering, or edge-case detail beyond the schema.

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 target: "Type into the focused text field (or the given element)", which tells an agent exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling browser_type, leaving the web-vs-native context boundary to inference.

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?

It implies the usage context (focused field, or supply an element id) and explains the append/submit modifiers, but never says when to prefer it over browser_type or what to do if no field is focused. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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