wavexis_key_up

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

With no meaningful annotation hints (all false), the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the side effect — sending a key-up input event to the browser page — and describes the return value. It does not mention failure behavior or session-state requirements, but the core behavioral impact is transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: behavior first, then guidance/alternatives, then side effects and return value. Each sentence adds distinct information with no redundancy or filler.

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 availability of an output schema, the description covers the important contextual gaps: it defines the low-level purpose, pairs it with key_down, provides alternatives, and states side effects. It could be more complete by explicitly noting the need for an active session or that keyUp should follow keyDown, but it is largely sufficient.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the required key or session_id fields, the modifier flags, or the meaning of 'raw'. The nested schema does contain property descriptions, but the tool description itself contributes almost no parameter semantics beyond saying a keyUp event is dispatched.

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 specific action — dispatching a raw keyUp event to the active page via CDP. It clearly distinguishes itself by naming wavexis_key_down as its pairing counterpart and wavexis_press_keys as the higher-level alternative, so the agent knows what this tool uniquely provides.

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 gives explicit routing guidance: use wavexis_key_down for low-level key control and wavexis_press_keys for simple text entry. This tells the agent when to choose this tool rather than siblings and when to choose an alternative.

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