type_text

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 provides per-mode semantics, including side effects: fill_input clears first, append keeps the existing value, fast_type avoids pauses, set_value does not simulate normal key events and supports range inputs, clear_only empties the field. This is thorough behavioral detail well beyond a generic 'enters text' line.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary, then follows with a clear Args list and a Tool-selection section. It is longer than minimal, but every sentence serves a purpose—no filler or repetition. The structured bullet lists and headings make it easy to scan. A slight deduction because the content could be tightened without losing substance.

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 fully specifies parameter semantics, element restrictions, selection criteria, and mode-specific behaviors, and an output schema exists to cover return values. It does not mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if the selector matches nothing or timeout expires), but that is a minor gap given the richness of the rest and the presence of an output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so admirably: the Args section explains selector meaning, text usage, timeout semantics, and each mode with concrete effects and an example for set_value with range inputs. The mode parameter is fully elaborated with five clearly described choices, giving the agent everything needed to choose correctly.

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 phrase 'Fill, append, fast-type, directly set, or clear a form control', naming the resource type and the distinct operations. It further delimits its scope to 'input elements, textareas, and contenteditable elements', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'click' or 'select_option'. The 'Tool selection' section explicitly routes away from text-entry toward 'get_content'/'find_elements' for listing inputs, so an agent can reliably tell this tool apart.

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 'Tool selection' section states exactly when to use this tool: 'use it when you know the selector and want to change or clear its value', and when not to: for a complete listing of inputs use 'get_content' or 'find_elements'. It also explicitly restricts usage to form-control element types. This gives the agent explicit decision criteria rather than leaving the choice to inference.

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