type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this simulates keyboard input and requires focus, but it does not say whether existing text is replaced or appended, how special characters/newlines are handled, or what side effects may occur.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It would earn a 5 if it also included a brief usage hint, but as written it is efficient and 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation reasonably well)Skip—what it does and where. However, it omits practical context like whether the text appends or replaces existing inputiard and when to prefer fill, which an agent would need to avoid mistakes.

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 provides no description for text, so the parameter's meaning relies entirely on the tool description. The description makes clear that text is what gets typed, which is adequate for a single untyped string, but it adds no format details such as support for newlines or special keys.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Type text using the keyboard') and identifies the target resource ('the currently focused element'). This separates it from sibling tools like navigate or screenshot, and from fill, which might target form fields differently.

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 implies the element must already be focused, but it does not explain when to choose type over fill, press_key, or other input-related siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites like clicking or focusing first.

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