type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so richly: it discloses tab raising, quiet-check behavior, approval foregrounding, global-target risk without session_id, focus behavior for activate_session='none', and the coordinates_off_screen refusal. This gives an agent an unusually complete picture of side effects.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loading the core action while weaving in essential caveats. It is somewhat long and clause-heavy, but every sentence justifies its place; a minor structural split would improve readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absent annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers nearly everything needed to invoke it safely: targeting, focus, failure mode, and coordinate semantics. The only notable omission is interval, but the schema default mitigates that risk.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains click_x/click_y in physical pixels, session_id semantics, and activate_session behavior, but never mentions the interval parameter, which is a meaningful gap for a typing tool. Most parameters are clarified, but not all.

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 the specific action 'Type text via the real keyboard' and the optional click behavior, clearly distinguishing itself from synthetic input tools. The physical-pixel vs CSS-pixel distinction reinforces that this is a real-input tool rather than a page-level simulation.

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?

Provides clear operational guidance: pass session_id to direct keystrokes, explains the risk of omitting it, and documents the activate_session='none' variant. It never explicitly names an alternative tool or when-not-to-use conditions, but the real-keyboard framing and coordinate-system note imply the boundary with page_* tools.

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