browser_paste_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the synthetic paste event (clipboardData.setData + 'insertFromPaste'), focus behavior, and controlled-input compatibility. It omits failure modes and permission nuances, but provides substantial behavioral detail beyond the name.

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?

Five sentences, each earning its place: purpose, ref behavior, counterpart workflow, event mechanism, and concrete use cases. Front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, use cases, and integration with the copy tool. It leaves tabId routing and the element permission requirement to the schema, which is acceptable, though it could mention potential failure scenarios.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it restates ref focus behavior and text purpose but does not elaborate on tabId or element semantics. It paraphrases rather than adds meaning over the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Paste text into a focused element on the page.' It clearly distinguishes itself from copy via 'Counterpart to browser_copy_to_clipboard', but does not explicitly contrast with browser_type or browser_press_key, so sibling differentiation is limited.

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 description provides explicit use cases ('Use for Stripe webhook secret fields, generated API key fields, or any text you need to push into a form') and a copy-then-paste workflow. However, it does not state when to prefer this over browser_type or other input tools, nor does it mention exclusions.

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