type_text

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

There are no annotations, so the description has to carry behavioral clarity by itself. It does explicitly disclose clear_first's destructive effect, but it does not mention focus requirements, key events, failure behavior, or what happens when clear_first is false.

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 compact and well organized: one purpose line followed by three clear parameter lines. It loses a point only because the text parameter line repeats what the parameter name already conveys.

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 browser automation tool the description covers the main inputs and the clear_first option, but with no annotations it leaves edge cases and behavior assumptions unexplained. The existence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value descriptions, but usage context and failure conditions are still missing.

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 Args section is the primary source of parameter meaning. It usefully explains that selector is a CSS selector and clear_first empties the field first, but 'text: Text to type' is essentially a tautology and adds little beyond the schema's type.

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?

'Type text into an input field' names a concrete action and a specific resource, which makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is also qualitatively distinct from sibling tools like click, select_option, and execute_script.

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 does not specify when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor does it exclude cases like select fields, file inputs, or elements managed by JavaScript. The only usage signal an agent gets is inferred from the description's first sentence.

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