webview_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool focuses the field and sets the value rather than merely sending keystrokes, and that it returns the updated WebView DOM. This exceeds a bare action statement, though it does not cover side effects or failures.

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?

One sentence that front-loads the core action and the distinctive return behavior; no filler or repeated schema 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?

The description gives the essential action, return behavior, and focus/value mechanism, but with no annotations and no output schema it leaves the selector requirement and remaining parameters (match, package) implicit. Adequate for basic use but not fully complete.

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 33%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that css or text is a selector mechanism and value is typed text, but it does not explain match or package semantics, leaving several parameters under-specified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Type text into a WebView field') and names the selector mechanism and return value. This cleanly distinguishes it from generic siblings like type_text/input_text by targeting WebView fields.

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?

Clear context for when to use: interacting with WebView fields using a css/text selector, returning updated DOM. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the WebView scoping is enough to route an agent.

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