type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions clearing and submitting, which are key behavioral traits. However, it omits details such as default clearing behavior (clear defaults to true), whether the element is focused first, or what happens if the input is not found, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, 15-word sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core action. Every word contributes value with no filler or 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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the main action and two options but omits important context such as how selectors are specified, the meaning of the 'by' parameter, and what the tool returns after execution. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves several gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It addresses 'clear' and 'submit' by mentioning them explicitly, but it does not explain 'by' (selector type) or 'selector' beyond their names, nor does it clarify the relationship between these parameters. The cryptic 'by' parameter is left entirely unexplained.

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's function with a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('an input on the phone'), and mentions two optional behaviors (clearing and submitting). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like click, tap, and scroll, which perform different actions.

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 implies when to use the tool (typing into inputs) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions. It does not mention situations where other tools like evaluate_javascript might be more appropriate, so usage context is only implied.

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