browser_press_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two useful traits: the return of an updated page snapshot and a security posture warning about untrusted page content. It omits prerequisites such as whether the page/element must be focused, what happens on invalid key names, and whether the snapshot default can be disabled.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and input formats, followed by an output note and the safety warning. Every clause earns its place with no 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description is the main carrier; it covers action, input formats, and return value. Minor gaps remain around focus prerequisites and failure behavior for a browser-interaction tool.

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 coverage is 67%, and the undocumented 'key' parameter is exactly where the description adds value: named keys, plain characters, and chord syntax (Control+A, Shift+Tab). The snapshot/screenshot booleans are already documented in the schema, so no repetition is needed.

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?

Specific verb (Press) plus resource (a key or shortcut in the page) with concrete key examples (Enter, Escape, Tab, chords like Control+A). An agent immediately knows what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with the overlapping sibling browser_type for single characters.

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 key examples imply the input domain but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., versus browser_type, browser_click, or browser_handle_dialog for Escape on a dialog). Usage must be inferred.

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