Type text

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful behavioral details about the 'clear' flag (replacing content) and 'submit' (pressing Enter), which go beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects like triggering input events or page navigation.

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 tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the addressing options are listed concisely without redundancy.

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 tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and addressing strategies. It omits error handling or return values, but those are not critical given the full parameter documentation in the schema.

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%, so every parameter is already documented. The description reiterates the addressing modes (ref, css, role+name) but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. This aligns with the baseline of 3.

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 text into inputs/textareas and lists three addressing methods (ref, css, role+name). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like browser_press_key, the specific verb and resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need to fill in a text field. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over browser_press_key or other input tools, nor any mention of when not to use it (e.g., for non-editable elements).

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