type_keyboard

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds minimal behavioral context by specifying that typing targets the focused input, but it does not disclose side effects such as triggering shortcuts, requiring focus, or handling characters that may be interpreted by the target application.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the core action and target.

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, the description is reasonably complete: it states the action and the target. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the lack of an output schema means return values need not be described. It could mention what happens with no focused input, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only restates that text will be typed, which is marginal added value over the schema's 'text' property. For a single obvious parameter this is adequate, but it does not explain special-character handling, newline behavior, or any format requirements.

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 a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('the current focused input'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It is naturally distinguished from sibling press_keyboard_keys, which handles key presses rather than text entry.

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 'current focused input' implies the tool should be used when text needs to be entered into an already focused field, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of press_keyboard_keys or other input methods. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so usage context is only implied.

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