Type Text

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only, but the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic action. It does not mention that existing input content is cleared by default (via the 'clear' parameter) or disclose any other side effects, so it adds no transparency beyond what annotations already provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though it is terse to the point of under-specification.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and presence of an output schema carry most of the contextual load, so the core action is adequately specified. However, the description does not synthesize key behaviors (like default clearing or observe mode) or provide high-level guidance on complex targeting, leaving the definition functional but thin.

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%—every parameter (text, clear, observe, timeout, selector) is documented in the input schema, including the complex selector union and its variants. The description itself contributes nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Type') and a clear resource ('input element'), making the core action obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like keyboard_press or element_select, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. It only states the action itself, leaving the agent to infer when this tool should be selected over siblings such as keyboard_press, element_click, or element_select.

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