type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and does so excellently. It reveals the clipboard-swap mechanism, the Cmd+V approach, the risk of losing image/file clipboards, the Accessibility permission requirement, and the 500-character limit. This is thorough and honest about side effects.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism rationale, clipboard side-effect warning, permission requirement, and length limit. It is compact but information-dense, and the most important functional detail (frontmost application) 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects an agent needs to invoke it correctly: target, method, side effects, permissions, and constraints. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents the single text parameter with a clear description and maxLength constraint, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds little beyond restating the 500-character limit, which is already present in the schema. Baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Type text into the frontmost application.' It also distinguishes itself from a keystroke-based alternative by explaining it uses Cmd+V to avoid garbling non-Latin keyboard layouts, which clearly separates it from sibling tools like press_key.

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 gives clear context on when this tool is appropriate, noting that it is preferred over keystroke simulation for text entry due to layout issues. It does not explicitly enumerate all alternatives or exclusions, but the 'not keystroke' clarification provides practical usage guidance for choosing between tools.

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