Press Studio key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine non-annotation context: it consumes a token, returns after-state, and rejects system/app-switching keys. These are useful behavioral disclosures beyond the structured 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentence fragments with no waste. The key action, side effects, and validation rejection are each stated economically.

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 a token-consuming key tool with 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers token consumption, returns after-state, and key rejection. But 'after-state' is undefined and the repeat/interval parameters go unexplained, so an agent still lacks some detail needed to call it precisely.

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 25% (only observation_token is documented). The description gestures at 'bounded repeats' and 'key/chord' but never explains key format, repeat bounds (1-30), or interval_ms semantics, leaving three of four parameters undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (send key/chord) and resource, distinguishing the keyboard action from siblings like studio_type_text or studio_click. The qualifier 'supported' and 'bounded repeats' narrows scope. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so not a 5.

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 'Send a supported Studio key/chord', and 'System/app-switching keys are rejected' gives a partial constraint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., vs studio_type_text for text input), leaving routing to inference.

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