type_text

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by explaining that typing is key-by-key and suited for elements reacting to real typing, plus the optional trailing key. It does not detail behaviors like whether existing text is cleared or appended, but the core behavioral distinction 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?

Two focused sentences with no wasted words. The core behavior comes first, and the alternative tool guidance is placed in a single clarifying second sentence.

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?

Given only one required parameter, a 100%-covered schema, and a sibling-tool comparison, the description covers the essential call decision. It could mention what happens when no element is focused or what the return value is, but these are minor given the schema's coverage and simple action.

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 uid, text, and submitKey. The description adds context about the typing mechanism and mentions an Enter-like trailing key, but it does not materially extend the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action ('Type text key by key into the focused element'), a clear resource (the focused element or a UID-focusable element), and optional submit behavior. It also distinguishes the tool from fill_by_uid by naming the alternative and the use case (elements that only react to real typing).

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?

It explicitly says to use fill_by_uid for known inputs and type_text for autocomplete fields and rich text editors that need real typing. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use rule relative to a sibling tool.

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