type

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does and does not mention side effects, behavior when the selector matches no element, or whether it triggers native input events. This is a significant gap for a tool that types into a page.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and target. There is no wordiness or redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 schema fully documents parameters, but the description lacks broader behavioral context, such as the availability of different target contexts or expected behavior under error conditions. It is adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps in operational understanding.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'CSS selector' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's existing 'CSS selector of the input element' parameter 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 uses a specific verb 'Type' with a clear resource ('input element') and method ('by CSS selector'), making its purpose immediately understandable and distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'click' and 'navigate'.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or context given. The description implies usage for typing text but does not address the different target contexts (page/popup/sidepanel) or when to prefer it over other input methods.

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