type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the tool waits for the element, clears existing text, or handles special characters. The minimal description does not inform the agent about potential side effects or requirements.

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 sentence, but it is underspecified rather than concise. Important details are omitted, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.

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 the lack of annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about behavior, error handling, or prerequisites. For a tool with two required parameters, this is wholly inadequate.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It adds no information: it does not specify what format 'selector' expects (e.g., CSS selector, XPath) or how 'text' is interpreted (keystrokes, typing speed, special keys). The agent receives no guidance beyond parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('Types text') and resource ('input field'), making its purpose immediately understandable. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like click, navigate, and scroll.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as click or other text manipulation tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios where type is appropriate.

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