browser_press_key

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

Annotations already flag the operation as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and open-world (openWorldHint=true), and the description does not contradict those signals. However, the description adds no extra behavioral context, such as potential shortcuts, focus requirements, or navigation side effects, so it earns only a baseline score thanks to the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary elaboration. It is slightly redundant with the tool title, but it is compact and easy to scan.

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 one-parameter tool with complete schema coverage and annotations indicating destructive/open-world behavior, the description is mostly sufficient for correct invocation. The main missing piece is explicit guidance on when to prefer it over sibling input tools, which is already penalized under usage guidelines.

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 100%: the single required parameter, key, is documented with examples like `ArrowLeft` and `a`. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clear action ('press') on a specific target ('a key'), so an agent can tell this is a keyboard-input tool. It does not explicitly distinguish pressing a key from typing with browser_type, but the key/character parameter and tool name make the core purpose reasonably clear.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus browser_type, browser_click, or browser_fill_form. No use cases, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the tool's role from its name and schema.

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