Type text

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, it discloses that text is inserted at the caret without clearing existing content and that password fields are refused by default with an env-var escape hatch. These are operationally important details not present in annotations.

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?

Three sentences front-load the primary behavior and then pack usage rules and security caveat into a tight, scannable structure. No filler.

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 two-parameter typing tool with destructiveHint already set, the description covers what it does, when to use it, what happens to existing text, and the password-field restriction. There is no output schema to document and no missing information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including 'character by character' and the get_app_state source for element_id. The description repeats the focus concept but adds no new parameter-level semantics, so 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?

The description names the action (type literal text as keystrokes), the target (field with focus or optionally element_id), and the core semantics (inserts at caret without clearing). It explicitly contrasts with set_value and press_key, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools.

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 gives concrete selection criteria: use for short entries and fields that reject set_value; use set_value for long replacements; use press_key for keys like return/tab. This is explicit when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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