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 behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool can clear or append text via the 'clear' parameter, which is good. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., triggering change events), error conditions (element not found), or behavior when the element is not a text input. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 at one sentence plus one usage tip. Every word earns its place, clearly stating the action and a key parameter behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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 output schema, the description should ideally mention return values (e.g., success indicator, element state). It doesn't, leaving that unclear. With nested objects (selector, frame) and no explanation of selector strategies beyond the schema enums, it completes the basic usage but misses context on what happens after typing (e.g., waits for stability, triggers events).

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 high at 75%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds value by explaining the 'clear' boolean behavior (append vs replace) beyond the schema's default value note. It doesn't add to 'selector' or 'frame' parameters, which are already well-described in the schema, so this is appropriate.

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 tool types text into an input or textarea, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'click' or 'select' by targeting text entry specifically, but doesn't differentiate from a potential 'send_keys' equivalent if one existed among siblings, so a slight deduction.

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 a key usage guideline: set clear to false to append instead of replacing text. This gives basic advice on when to use a parameter. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clicking an element first or waiting, and doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., element must be visible/interactable).

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