type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: real keyboard input requiring prior focus, which distinguishes it from direct-value tools. However, it omits whether typing appends or replaces existing content, whether it fires key events that could trigger handlers, and permission/error behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple action, though it could have spent a few more words on the focus distinction from fill.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the essential behavior (keyboard typing into the focused element) is conveyed. The main gap is not clarifying the difference from fill, which an agent choosing among these siblings would benefit from.

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 coverage is 67%, with pageId and submitKey already documented in the schema. The description adds targeting context ('previously focused input') but no extra meaning for the required text parameter or the optional submitKey beyond what the schema states. 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?

States a specific verb (type text) and mechanism (keyboard) plus the target condition (previously focused input). It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like fill by emphasizing keyboard typing rather than value setting, though it never names those siblings.

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 phrase 'into a previously focused input' implies a prerequisite (something must be focused first) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like fill or press_key. Usage is only inferred.

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