type_text

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the focusing behavior (click first), which is useful, but doesn't disclose side effects — whether typing replaces existing content, whether it triggers events/submission, or whether the selector case requires visibility. For an interaction tool with no annotations, this is a notable 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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core verb ('Type text'), and immediately clarifies the two modes of operation. Zero filler — every phrase earns its place. This is an ideal length for a simple action tool.

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 3-param typing tool, the description covers the core mechanics: selector usage and focus behavior. However, given no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from disclosing side effects (e.g., whether existing element content is replaced, whether it dispatches events). It's adequate for basic use but lacks behavioral depth for edge cases.

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 documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning to the selector param (fills that element) and clarifies the no-selector case (types at current focus), which goes slightly beyond the schema. However, text and tab_id get no additional elaboration beyond what's already in the schema, so the added value is moderate.

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 clear purpose: type text, with a selector filling that element or typing at current focus. It distinguishes itself via the selector/current-focus dichotomy, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like press_key or eval_js. The verb+resource is specific enough for an agent to select it conceptually.

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 gives a clear when-to-use: fill a specific element with a selector, or type at current focus (implying click first). However, it doesn't explicitly explain when to choose this over press_key or browser_exec, nor does it mention prerequisites like page load or focus state beyond the 'click first to focus' hint. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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