Press Eden Key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds that keys are resolved through Eden's active input profile and lists supported names. However, it does not disclose side effects, behavior on invalid keys, or rate limits, so it only partially goes beyond the annotation.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence leads with the action, and the second enumerates supported key names efficiently.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has 5 parameters and no schema-level descriptions. The description omits guidance on modifiers, hold duration, session_id usage, and alternative tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters. It only documents valid values for the 'key' parameter, leaving 'action', 'hold_ms', 'modifiers', and 'session_id' unexplained beyond the schema's structural defaults and enums.

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 host keyboard key to Eden, using specific verbs and resource framing. It distinguishes from siblings like eden_press_button and eden_touch_screen by specifying "host keyboard key" and listing supported keyboard keys.

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 clear context that this tool is for keyboard input, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as eden_press_button or eden_run_input_script. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative naming.

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