type_text

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses that the input is cleared before typing and that Enter is pressed when enter=true. It also states return behavior (snapshot vs compact summary), though it does not mention possible page navigation side effects or failure modes.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the primary action, then adds clearing, Enter submission, and return behavior in order of importance. There is no filler or duplication of schema details.

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 all functional aspects needed to invoke the tool: preconditions within the action, conditional behavior, and return variants. The output schema exists, so return specifics are not necessary; the only real gap is where the input index comes from, but this is reasonably inferable in a browser-automation context.

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 parameter coverage is 0%, but the prose maps every parameter to its effect: text is typed, index selects the input, enter triggers submit, and include_snapshot=false returns a compact summary. It adds meaning that the schema titles lack, though it does not elaborate on what index refers to or the summary's structure.

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 opens with a specific action ('Type text into the input') and identifies the resource by index. It adds concrete behavioral details (clears first, Enter submission) that make the tool's job unmistakable and distinguish it from siblings like fill_secret.

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 given about when to choose this tool over fill_secret, click, or read. The description explains mechanics but not the context or exclusions that would help an agent select it correctly.

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