Type into page element

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important failure modes (password fields blocked unless force=true; DOCUMENT_HIDDEN unless allowHidden=true) and names activate_tab as a remedy. It does not mention other behaviors like whether the text replaces existing content or appends, but the disclosed constraints are valuable and specific.

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 sentences with zero waste. The core action is stated first, followed by the two most important behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the core action and the two main failure modes. It does not explain the 'after' observation block or the tab/frame targeting semantics, but the schema provides descriptions for those. The description is adequate for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in most cases.

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 description coverage is 63%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds meaning for 'ref' (snapshot ref) and 'force' (bypass password blocking), but does not explain 'after', 'tabId', 'documentId', or 'sessionTabId' beyond what the schema provides. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb ('Type'), a resource ('text into an element by snapshot ref'), and two key behavioral constraints (password fields blocked unless force=true; DOCUMENT_HIDDEN unless allowHidden=true). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like click, keypress, and click_at, which involve different interaction mechanisms.

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 implies usage context: it is for typing text into an element, and it explicitly mentions when it fails (password fields, hidden documents) and the remedy (activate_tab). It does not explicitly name alternatives like keypress for keyboard events, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool for text entry.

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