type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose useful facts (text goes to the cursor and any Unicode is supported), but it doesn't mention side effects, prerequisites like a focused editable element, or behavior with special characters/newlines. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 succinct sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the Unicode statement is relevant additional information that 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 one-parameter, simple tool the description covers the basic what and where, but it omits usage routing among sibling input tools and any preconditions. With no output schema, it also doesn't clarify return/error behavior, though that's minor for a fire-and-forget typing action.

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 already covers the parameter fully ('Text to type'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the text is inserted at the current cursor position and that arbitrary Unicode is accepted, giving the agent extra semantic understanding of the text parameter's intended use.

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 a specific action ('Type text') with the target location ('at the current cursor position') and an encoding guarantee ('Works with any Unicode text'). This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from siblings like key or left_click, though it doesn't name an alternative explicitly.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling input tools such as key or hold_key. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or trade-offs, so an agent cannot infer the appropriate context for type versus key from this text.

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