apps_control

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, non-idempotent, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial context beyond that: how down/up/cancel versus click/long behave, the holdMs default pairing, the special K1=host Menu behavior, and the control-loss cancellation semantics. It stops short of describing return/status behavior, but this is strong added value.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the phase mechanics and constraints. Almost every clause earns its place; only minor density in the middle sentence keeps it from a 5.

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 7-parameter, 5-required mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the description covers the main workflow and control semantics but omits meaning for several parameters (delta, generation, instanceId) and any notion of the response. It is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does explain the type semantics (down/up/cancel as exact phases vs click/long as paired presses) and the holdMs default, and it maps the control enum to keys. However, delta, generation, instanceId, and the target values receive no explanation, leaving a significant compensation gap.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Simulate') and a precise resource (E1-E4 rotation/press and K1-K4 keys) plus the target scope ('explicit active preview or device App'). This scope clearly differentiates it from siblings like apps_interface_input and apps_preview_input, so an agent can select it 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?

It implies the usage context ('on an explicit active preview or device App') and states a prerequisite ('Requires AI control'), which hints at when it applies. However, it never names an alternative tool or an explicit when-not condition, so routing versus siblings like apps_preview_input is left to inference.

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