desktop_press_keys

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

With zero annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add real behavioral constraints: exactly one chord at a time (no sequences/macros), focus is a prerequisite, and text entry is out of scope. But it stays silent on what happens when focus is absent (fail vs. auto-activate), error behavior, and any response/return signal, leaving meaningful operational gaps.

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?

Two sentences totaling roughly 17 words, with zero filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by format examples, a precondition, and a boundary clause — every piece earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, chord value format, the focus requirement, and the text-entry exclusion. What's missing is operational chaining detail: how to obtain window_id and what to expect if the target window is not focused. These are minor gaps given the low complexity, but they would help an agent compose this with desktop_activate/desktop_windows.

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 for both parameters. It compensates strongly for chord by documenting the value format with modifier+key examples and named keys (Return, Tab, Escape). The window_id parameter is only implied as the 'target focus' and is not tied to how an agent should source it (e.g., from a desktop_windows call), which is the weaker half.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Send one deliberate chord') and gives concrete value examples (ctrl+s, ctrl+shift+v, Return, Tab, Escape) so an agent knows exactly what kind of input this tool accepts. The clause 'never use this to type text' distinguishes it from the text-entry siblings (desktop_enter_text, desktop_set_text) in the sibling list, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 an explicit precondition ('Requires target focus') and an explicit exclusion ('never use this to type text'), which tells the agent when not to reach for this tool. However, it never names the alternative tool for text entry (desktop_enter_text), so the positive when-to-use side is left mostly to inference from the siblings.

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