send_key

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by explaining that it supports any Godot-recognized key name, including modifiers, and that it sends a single key event. It also communicates the behavioral difference from send_key_sequence (server-side processing in one round-trip). However, it does not mention error handling or side effects, which would elevate transparency further.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core action, then provides an alternative recommendation, and ends with a prerequisite. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a simple input-sending tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, prerequisite, and alternative for multiple keys, sufficiently enabling an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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?

The schema already covers all 6 parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds value by clarifying the key naming convention ('Supports any key name recognized by Godot') and confirming modifier key support, which goes beyond the generic schema descriptions.

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's function: 'Send a single keyboard key event to a running interactive Godot project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool send_key_sequence by noting that for multiple keys, send_key_sequence should be preferred.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus send_key_sequence, stating 'For sending multiple keys, prefer send_key_sequence.' It also specifies a prerequisite: 'The project must be running via run_interactive.' This clearly defines the applicable context.

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