type_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the tool uses the React-safe native setter and fires input/change events, which is important for React apps. However, it does not mention the default clear-before-typing behavior, batch limits, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps that the schema only partially covers.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary action, and the technical mechanism is stated in as few words as possible. However, the phrase 'One field: ref+text…' is vague and reads like unfinished thought, which slightly reduces clarity. Overall, the length is appropriate but the structure could be improved with a less cryptic fragment.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is the main source of context, but it fails to explain batch mode through the 'fields' array, the purpose of frameId, or the default clearing behavior. The tool has multiple parameters and sibling tools with overlapping domains, yet the description leaves many operational details to be inferred. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 60%, covering fields, frameId, and clearFirst. The description adds a slight semantic hint that 'ref+text' are the core parameters for a single field, but it does not elaborate on their formats or relationships. It adds limited value beyond the schema and does not compensate for the 40% of parameters lacking descriptions.

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 identifies the action ('Fill input(s)') and the resource ('input(s)'), with a specific technical mechanism ('React-safe native setter + input/change events') that distinguishes it from simpler approaches. The phrase 'One field: ref+text' is somewhat cryptic but does not obscure the core purpose. It differentiates from sibling tools like press_key and click, which target keyboard and mouse actions rather than text input.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use type_text versus alternatives such as form, press_key, or read. The 'One field: ref+text' hint implies a simple usage pattern but does not explain batch mode or when to prefer this tool over others. There are no exclusions or conditions specifying which scenario calls for this tool versus a sibling.

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