chrome_type

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context: it replaces the current value unless append is true, and submit: true presses Enter afterward. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or failure behavior, but this is solid additional detail beyond the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Core action comes first, followed by the important append and submit modifiers.

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 destructive annotation, no output schema, and a mutation-oriented tool, the description covers the essential behavioral modifiers. It leaves out explicit ref provenance from chrome_snapshot, but the schema's snapshotId field hints at that dependency.

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?

With only 43% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining append and submit semantics, plus the core ref and text roles. However, it does not fully document all seven parameters, and some context such as where ref originates from is left implicit.

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: focus an element by ref and type text. It distinguishes the action itself, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like browser_type or chrome_press_key.

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 implies the tool is used to type text into a referenced element, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over browser_type, chrome_click, chrome_press_key, or other alternatives. No when-not-to-use conditions are mentioned.

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