type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits (jittered inter-key timing, slower after punctuation, default cps) and implies a prerequisite (focused control). It does not mention potential failures or side effects, but the provided behavioral details add substantial value beyond the schema.

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?

Two concise sentences. The first states the core action and target, the second explains the timing parameter. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target, behavior, and parameter defaults. Missing details like error handling or behavior when no control is focused are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the description repeats the cps default (12) already present in the schema. It adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 specifies the action ('Type text into the focused control') and adds a distinguishing behavior ('human rhythm with jittered inter-key timing, slower after punctuation'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like press_key or mouse_click, which handle discrete inputs.

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: whenever text needs to be typed into a focused control, with a humanized timing. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks a bit of comparative guidance.

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