type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention key behaviors such as whether the element is cleared before typing (clearFirst parameter exists in schema but not described here), whether it triggers input events, or if it requires the element to be focused or visible.

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 a single concise sentence. While efficient, it could benefit from mentioning the default behavior of clearFirst or a brief usage note. However, it is not verbose.

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?

As a simple action tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. However, it omits details about return values, error conditions, and behavior with non-input elements. With 15 sibling tools, it is adequately but not thoroughly contextualized.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (text, selector, clearFirst). It simply restates the tool's purpose.

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 'Type text into an input element' clearly states the action (type), the resource (input element), and what is typed (text). It is specific and distinguishes the tool from siblings like click_element (click) and get_element_text (get text).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., execute_script for programmatic input, or navigate for URL changes). No usage conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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