Press Eden Switch Button

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already flags the tool as destructive. The description adds the prerequisite of the Eden control endpoint and the list of supported buttons, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., affecting game state) or any other behavioral nuances. It does not contradict the annotation, but the additional context is minimal.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by a concise list of supported buttons and a prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description is incomplete for a 5-parameter tool: it does not explain action semantics, hold_ms behavior, or how player/session_id are used. It covers the core purpose and button list, but lacks the depth needed for an agent to fully understand invocation nuances.

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 by explaining parameters. It only partially clarifies the 'button' parameter by listing supported values, but it does not explain 'action' (tap/down/up), 'hold_ms', 'player', or 'session_id'. The enum for 'action' is in the schema but not echoed in the description, leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.

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 clearly states the tool sends a Nintendo Switch button directly to a player via Eden's virtual gamepad, and enumerates supported buttons. This specific verb+resource combination ('Send... button') and the explicit reference to 'Nintendo Switch' and 'virtual gamepad' distinguishes it from siblings like eden_press_key (likely keyboard) and eden_touch_screen.

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 implies usage context by focusing on Switch buttons and the virtual gamepad, and mentions a prerequisite ('Requires the Eden control endpoint'). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., eden_press_key for keyboard input, eden_touch_screen for touch), nor does it name exclusions.

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