neuron_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, but it only states the surface action. It does not reveal whether existing text is cleared, whether keyboard events are dispatched, whether the element must be focused first, or how contenteditable elements are handled differently from inputs. This leaves important behavior unknown to the agent.

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 with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and names the exact element types, which is appropriately concise for a simple tool definition.

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 straightforward typing action, the description plus fully documented schema is minimally adequate, but the lack of behavioral details such as overwrite semantics, event triggering, and focus requirements leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether this tool will behave as expected. The presence of sibling tools like neuron_fill_and_submit also makes some usage-context guidance valuable, which is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents tabId, value, and selectors adequately. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the target element types, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Type') with a clear resource ('an input, textarea, or contenteditable element'), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like neuron_click or neuron_fill_and_submit, but it establishes a distinct core action.

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 when to use this tool: whenever text needs to be entered into form-like elements. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or when a sibling tool such as neuron_fill_and_submit would be a better choice, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from tool names alone.

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