browser_type

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only states the action. It doesn't mention whether typing replaces existing text, whether a selector is required for element targeting, or how it interacts with focus for page typing. Important behavioral traits are entirely absent.

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, tight sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately front-loaded, but could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness; still, it avoids fluff and is well-structured.

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 browser automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't clarify when typing on a page vs. into an element is appropriate, or what happens after the text is typed. Sibling tools like browser_press_key are not differentiated, leaving the agent without enough context to select this tool confidently.

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 input schema fully describes all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as typical use cases for delay or the optional selector, but the schema already provides adequate parameter documentation.

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 the specific verb 'type' and identifies the resource as text into an element or page, which clearly distinguishes it from clicking or pressing keys. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for comparison or further clarify the target element behavior.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like browser_press_key or browser_evaluate, nor any prerequisites such as needing an element focused. The purpose is the only implied usage signal, and there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references.

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