type_text

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds genuinely useful context by disclosing that the operation replaces existing field contents (destructive to prior value) and that submission may send something externally, requiring a confirmed=true approval gate. It stops short of describing failure modes, but the approval workflow is a meaningful addition beyond 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?

Front-loads the core action and targeting method, then adds submit and approval caveats. Sentences are dense with useful information; the submit/confirmed sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased but earns its place.

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 mutating, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical decision points: what is replaced, how the target is chosen, and when confirmation is mandatory. Only the meaning of `session_id` and what the tool returns on success are absent.

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 carries the burden and does well: it defines `text`, the ref-or-label targeting choice, `submit` semantics, and the `confirmed` approval requirement. Only `session_id` is left unexplained, which is a minor gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 and resource ('Replace the contents of a text field with `text`') and immediately explains how the target field is identified via `ref` or visible `label`. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_text, click, and press_key, which do not enter text.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: submit=True presses Enter, and that behavior outside search boxes requires confirmed=true only after user approval. It doesn't explicitly steer the agent toward alternatives (e.g., press_key for a bare Enter without typing), so it falls just short of full when/when-not/alternative coverage.

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