type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that typing uses 'real key events', that a ref is 'clicked first', that clear does select-all-and-delete, and that pressEnter submits. It omits edge behavior like missing focus or errors, but the key behavioral traits are present.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and each clause adds a distinct piece of useful information.

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 side-effectful typing tool with five parameters, the description plus schema cover required inputs and all optional behaviors. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but those are less critical for a keyboard automation tool without an output schema.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema for ref ('clicked first'), clear ('selects all and deletes first'), and pressEnter ('submits'). Text and tabId are not elaborated, but text is self-evident and tabId has a schema description.

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 real key events'), a target ('focused element' or 'ref'), and includes the side-effect flags. It does not explicitly call out sibling tools like form_input or press_key, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as form_input or press_key. It only explains how the target is chosen and what flags do, not when this tool should be preferred or avoided.

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