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 usefully discloses the clipboard mechanism and the 'any language works' consequence, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about the default-on screenshot_after side effect, focus preconditions, or clipboard overwrites.

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?

Two short clauses, front-loaded with the action and target, no filler. The parenthetical about the clipboard earns its place by explaining the language-agnostic behavior, though the overall brevity leaves gaps.

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 three-parameter GUI-automation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the default screenshot side effect, the focus precondition, and any indication of failure behavior, all of which an agent needs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains press_enter's effect but leaves text and especially screenshot_after (default true, a side effect happening without opt-in) completely undocumented, so it only partially covers the gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Type) and target (the focused field), plus the implementation detail that it uses the clipboard. It is clear what the tool does, but it never contrasts itself with the sibling set_field, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The mention that 'press_enter sends it' hints at a submit flow, but nothing tells the agent to focus a field first, or when set_field would be the better choice.

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