press_live_shortcut

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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: it focuses Live before pressing keys and warns that some synthetic Ctrl shortcuts are ignored. It does not explain how repeat behaves or what happens when a shortcut is rejected, but it adds meaningful focus and limitation context.

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 tight sentences with no wasted wording. The main action is front-loaded, followed by examples and the important exception for run_live_menu. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 presence of an output schema and annotations covering safety characteristics, the description supplies the essential call context: purpose, focus side effect, shortcut examples, and the Ctrl+S/Ctrl+G exception. The main gap is that repeat remains unexplained, and there is no detail on error behavior for rejected shortcuts.

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 carry parameter meaning. It gives examples of valid key strings, which helps clarify keys syntax, but it does not define the accepted key grammar and never mentions the repeat parameter. One of two parameters is effectively undocumented.

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 verb and resource: bring Live to the front and press keys there. It gives concrete shortcut examples and explicitly distinguishes itself from run_live_menu for Ctrl+S and Ctrl+G. An agent can identify the core action without opening the schema.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool for keyboard shortcuts, including examples such as tab and ctrl+shift+r. It also names the alternative for shortcuts Live ignores: use run_live_menu for Ctrl+S and Ctrl+G. This is explicit routing rather than implied usage.

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