desktop_control

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: checkpoint-based interruption, no undoing of already-delivered input, continued observation, and the limitation regarding external programs. This is well beyond the bare action enum and gives the agent a precise mental model of the tool's behavior.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, interrupt mechanics, side effect of observation, and the boundary of what it does not affect. Information is front-loaded and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, side effects, boundaries, and behavioral semantics. The only missing context is the meaning or return value of the 'status' action, which is a minor omission given the default value and the enum.

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 clearly explains the semantics behind the 'pause' and 'resume' actions, which maps to two of the three enum values. However, it never mentions the 'status' action or what it returns; the enum and default are self-explanatory enough that this is a minor gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Pause/resume cooperating agent input across servers on this display.' It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it only affects cooperating agent input and explicitly saying it does not stop arbitrary external programs, so the agent can tell it apart from tools like desktop_recover_input or desktop_observe.

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 usage context: pausing interrupts at the next checkpoint, observation remains available, and it is not for stopping external input programs. It includes an explicit when-not but does not name sibling alternatives directly, so an agent has to infer which other tool to use instead.

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