type_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 that text replaces existing content and implies a dependency on a prior snapshot. However, it does not specify if the operation simulates keystrokes or sets the value directly, nor does it mention potential side effects or event triggers.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Type text into an input field'), and every sentence adds essential information. No redundant or irrelevant content.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, how to specify the target, and a prerequisite (snapshot). It could be more complete by detailing the return value or success behavior, but it is sufficient for a simple action tool.

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 value by clarifying that 'ref' comes from a snapshot, that 'selector' is a CSS selector, and by recommending the order of preference. This guidance goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 it types text into an input field, and distinguishes between using a ref or a CSS selector, providing specific guidance on when to use each. This makes the purpose highly clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 guidelines on when to use ref vs selector (e.g., 'Use ref when available; otherwise use selector when snapshot doesn't assign refs'). It also advises to call snapshot first. However, it does not mention alternative tools for similar tasks (like fill_form), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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