browser_type

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure, but it only states the literal action. It does not say whether existing element text is replaced or appended, whether the element must already be focused, or what happens when 'submit' is true. There is no contradiction with annotations because none exist.

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 and front-loaded with the core action and target. It contains no filler, though its brevity means some behavioral nuance is sacrificed; it is efficient rather than bloated.

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 tool with fully documented parameters, the minimal description is somewhat usable. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on behavior or alternatives, the description leaves important context undisclosed for an agent to call it well.

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 100%, so the parameters are already self-explanatory in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail about parameters, but the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 clearly states the action (type) and target (text into element), so an agent understands the basic operation. It is differentiated from navigation, screenshots, and clicking, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling input tools like browser_fill_form or browser_press_key.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description does not mention that browser_fill_form may be better for form-like interactions or that browser_press_key handles key presses, so the agent is left without routing information.

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