Type text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It covers the default fill vs. append behavior and target locator support, but it does not mention waiting, error conditions, or side effects like form submission when pressEnter is used, leaving a meaningful gap.

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 sentences carry exactly the required information: what the tool does, its default vs. append behavior, and how targets can be specified. There is no repetition or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 that the schema covers all parameters and the tool is conceptually simple, the description provides enough context for the core invocation. It could mention return behavior or edge cases, but for a text-entry action the current level is adequate.

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 every parameter. The description mainly restates the clear behavior and locator options that are already present in the schema, adding little value beyond the structured definitions.

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 verb and resource: 'Types text into an element (input, textarea, contenteditable)'. It immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools like click, check, press_key, and navigate, so an agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 explains the two key invocation modes: default replaces the current value, while clear:false appends keystroke-by-keystroke. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the element types and text-entry behavior make the intended use case reasonably clear.

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