cdp_type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses the behavioral difference between modes (fill replaces value, type fires real key events, insert is paste-like), and clarifies that without a selector it targets the focused element. It doesn't mention the deprecated 'clear' field or error behaviors, but core behaviors are well covered.

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?

Three short sentences, all substantive. The first sentence states the action, the second explains selector usage, and the third clarifies modes. No filler or redundant restatement, and it's front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main usage scenarios and mode semantics. It doesn't describe what happens on selector miss or explain the 'clear' deprecation, but those are partially addressed in the schema. The core functionality is well explained, and the tool is simple enough that this is adequate.

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 plain-language meaning to the mode parameter ('replace value', 'real key events', 'paste-like') and explains the semantics of the selector parameter (targets element vs focused element). This compensates for the schema leaving 'text' and 'selector' without descriptions, and reinforces the enum meanings that are spelled out in the schema.

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 opens with 'Input text' and clearly distinguishes behaviors: with a selector it fills/types the element, without it types into focused element. It also explains the three modes (fill, type, insert), making it entirely clear what the tool does and how it differs from sibling tools like cdp_press.

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 usage by explaining how to use it with or without a selector, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like cdp_press or cdp_click. There are no exclusions or comparative guidance, so it's only implied usage.

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