browser_type_ref

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

With no annotations, description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions focusing before typing and submit option, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., if element not found), whether it clears existing text, or behavior on non-input elements.

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?

Description is short and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing parameters). No wasted words.

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 the tool's simplicity (no output schema, 4 parameters) and no annotations, description covers core action and one option, but misses documentation for 'id' parameter and behavioral details, leaving gaps.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains 'ref', 'text', and 'submit' but omits 'id' entirely, leaving one of four parameters without semantic context in the 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?

Description clearly states it focuses an element by ref and types text into it. It distinguishes from siblings like browser_click_ref (click) and desktop_type (desktop typing). The verb-resource pair ('type text into element identified by ref') is specific.

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?

Description conveys when to use: to type text into a focused element, with optional submit. However, it doesn't mention when not to use or provide alternatives, such as browser_eval for JavaScript or browser_extract for getting text.

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