type_text

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the burden of behavior. It only says text is typed; it does not disclose whether text replaces or appends, whether the element must be visible or focused, whether a session is required, or what side effects occur. No contradictions, but minimal disclosure.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses an Args block to label parameters. There is no filler or redundant information; every sentence contributes.

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 no annotations and a mutating side effect, the description is thin. It does not state session requirements, element readiness, or locator syntax, and the output schema does not cover behavioral preconditions. An agent has enough to guess the call shape but not to avoid common errors.

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?

The description adds a terse semantic gloss for both parameters ('locator of the input field', 'text to enter'), which is some compensation for 0% schema coverage. However, it omits the locator format or strategy (e.g., CSS selector, XPath) and any text encoding or escaping details, so the parameters remain under-specified.

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 states the action explicitly: 'Saisit du texte dans un champ de l'application' (types text into an application field). It is specific about the resource and distinguishes it from siblings such as tap_element, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or non-goals.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over siblings, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The only usage signal is the action itself, leaving the agent to infer when typing text is appropriate. This is essentially no usage guidance beyond the tool name.

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