sassy_type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently reveals that the tool always clears the field via ctrl-a+backspace and clicks the field first if target coordinates are supplied. These are significant side effects that an agent must know. It could reasonably mention more about error handling or return values, but the output schema covers return values.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful information. There is no filler or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 4-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key behavioral preconditions, and the function of two parameters. The unexplained 'interval' parameter and lack of explicit alternatives are minor gaps, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for safe invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains target_x/target_y by stating they trigger a click, and text is self-evident from the tool's name. However, the 'interval' parameter is not mentioned at all, leaving a gap for the agent. This partial compensation merits a mid-range score.

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 'Type text into a field' with a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the tool's primary function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sassy_click and sassy_shell by focusing on text entry into a field, and the additional details about clearing and clicking further clarify its scope.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: for typing text into a field, with a precondition that it always clears the field first and optionally clicks if coordinates are given. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, which prevents a perfect score.

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