Type text

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

Annotations already declare write, destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral note, the shared credential restrictions with browser_fill, but leaves the actual restrictions unspecified and does not mention retry/idempotency nuance.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not describe return values or the effect of a non-idempotent, destructive insert on existing field content. With annotations carrying the safety profile and the schema fully documented, this is adequate but thin for a destructive-input tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the request_id retry semantics and the observation_id/ref linking. The description adds only the 'at the caret' behavioral detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb-resource pairing is specific: inserting text at the caret of a text field. The phrase 'ordinary text field' hints at a contrast with browser_fill, but it never names the distinction or the sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer which tool to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance and no comparison against browser_fill, browser_key, or browser_click. The mention of browser_fill is about credential restrictions, not about which situation selects this tool over that one.

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