vision_type

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden; it discloses the two main side effects (clicking and typing) but does not mention focus requirements, whether text replaces or appends, or failure behavior.

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 concise sentence with action and object; front-loaded enough. Slight awkwardness from 'vision_click' but no padding.

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 covers the two required parameters and overall behavior, but lacks context about optional parameters (e.g., min_confidence), expected output, or when the visual field resolution may fail. Adequate but not 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 descriptions cover 80% of parameters, but the critical 'intent' field is only described as 'Description of the input,' which is circular and does not clarify that it is the visual description of the field to click. 'text' is self-explanatory; 'min_confidence' has no 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 clear combined action: click a field identified by description, then type provided text. It distinguishes from vision_click (click only) and type (type into already focused element), though the phrase 'vision_click' is awkward and could be clearer.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like vision_click, type, or fill. The action is described, but conditions, prerequisites, and exclusions are omitted.

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