send_input

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this mutates game state (simulated input), but says nothing about coordinate conventions, whether input must be paired (key_down/key_up), rate limits, or failure modes — significant gaps for a 6-param mutation tool.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the enum list. The enum restatement is slightly redundant given it already lives in the schema, but the text is otherwise waste-free.

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?

With 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should do more. It omits coordinate semantics, the key/mouse-mode relationship, and any safety or sequencing guidance, leaving an agent to infer how to construct valid calls.

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 only 50%, and the description's only parameter content is repeating the enum already present in the schema. It adds no meaning for x/y coordinate space, how key/button interact with type, or how duration behaves, so it does not compensate for the coverage 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Simulate keyboard or mouse input in the game') and gives concrete examples of its effect (move, attack, click). It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_screenshot and get_objects, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'letting the AI actually play,' which signals this is the tool for acting on the game, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no mention of how it relates to run_lua, which could also drive behavior.

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