Type text

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that `element` is clicked first and that `replace: true` overwrites the whole value, but it says nothing about focus prerequisites, timing/waits, or how typing interacts with existing content. Adequate but not rich for a zero-annotation mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the mode distinction and the sibling routing rule. No filler.

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 5-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main call semantics and the key ambiguity (typing vs. replacing). It doesn't address return behavior or failure/timing, but look_after is already documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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 real meaning for `replace` (whole-value overwrite vs typing) and `element` (clicked first), but leaves `app`, `look_after`, and `text` to the schema/name. Partial compensation, so a mid score.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Type text with the keyboard') plus the two target modes (focused field, or a clicked `element`). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling press_keys, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it: 'Use press_keys for Enter, Tab, shortcuts.' That is an explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that rule, not implied guidance.

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