vibeside_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether the element is focused or clicked first, whether input/change events are dispatched, whether the text replaces or appends content, or whether the element must be visible. Only the target element type is disclosed.

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 zero filler. It is tight, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than efficient conciseness for a behavioral tool.

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 annotations, no output schema, an undocumented boolean parameter, and no usage routing leave real gaps for an agent operating among many sibling browser tools. The description does not compensate for any of them.

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%: 'text' and 'selector' are documented in the schema, but 'clearFirst' has no description and is never mentioned in the tool description despite materially changing behavior. The description adds nothing beyond the schema text.

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 gives a specific verb ('Type') and resource ('text into an input or textarea element'), so the action is unambiguous. It stops short of differentiating from close siblings like vibeside_autofill_form or vibeside_click, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 guidance on when to use this versus vibeside_autofill_form (bulk form filling) or how it relates to vibeside_click for focusing. Usage is only weakly implied by the mention of input/textarea targets.

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