simulate_input

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

With only destructiveHint=true in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does so: it discloses the return shape (success, actions_processed, warnings from input handlers) and failure conditions (no session, any action failing validation). It doesn't restate the mutation risk that destructiveHint implies, but adds substantial runtime-error and sequencing 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then constraints, then return/error contract in a tight block. Sentences are dense but each carries a distinct operational fact, so little is wasted; slightly information-packed but justified for the action-gating complexity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained in depth, yet the description still summarizes them and adds the error/failure contract. Combined with the gating rule and sibling reference, an agent has what it needs to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-cutting semantics the schema cannot: the `type` field 'gates which other fields apply', and the press/release two-action pattern. It directs the reader to per-property docs, but doesn't itself restate relative vs absolute mouse semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Simulate sequential input in a running project') and enumerates the action types (key, mouse_button, mouse_motion, click_element, action, wait) it accepts. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_script or run_project.

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?

Routes the agent explicitly ('For click_element use get_ui_elements first') and gives operational guidance ('Press/release require two actions; insert wait between for frame ticks'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a named alternative for other scenarios, so it is a strong 4 rather than a 5.

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