type_text

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the tool's mutability is known. The description adds context: it types via native input, has a side effect of keystrokes on the remote desktop, and does not click first. This enriches the behavioral profile beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise (3 sentences) with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action, then adds prerequisite, side effect, and alternative usage, all in a logical order.

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 tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers the action, prerequisite, side effect, and alternative. It lacks explicit mention of error behavior if the field is not focused, but that is implied as a prerequisite. Overall adequate for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds that the text is a Unicode string and that it's literal (not a key combo), which adds meaning beyond the schema for the 'text' 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 clearly states the tool types a Unicode string into the focused control via native input, which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like send_keys (key combos) and send_actions (sequences). It explicitly says it does not click first and that for form fills, send_actions is preferred.

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 explicit guidance: focus the field before calling (using click_target or send_actions), and for multi-step form fills, prefer send_actions. This clearly tells when and when not to use this tool.

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