fcp_press_keys

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context that the app is focused/brought forward first. However, it never explains the destructiveness risk of sending arbitrary keystrokes (e.g., cmd+z, delete) or what happens on failure, leaving the most important behavioral trait unaddressed.

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?

One short sentence with the key fact front-loaded and no filler. Appropriate size for the tool, though the parenthetical about focus could be integrated more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the annotations carry the safety profile. Still, for a destructive keystroke-injection tool the description omits failure modes, repeat semantics, and risk of unintended shortcuts — gaps an agent should not have to infer.

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 only 50%: 'combo' is well documented with examples, but 'repeat' (1-100) has no description anywhere. The tool description adds nothing about either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented repeat multiplier, which meaningfully changes behavior and risk.

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 and resource ('Press a keyboard shortcut in Final Cut Pro'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like fcp_menu_click or fcp_click_button. It also discloses that FCP is brought to the front, a detail not evident from the name alone.

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 the verb — an agent can infer this is for keyboard shortcuts versus menu or button clicking — but nothing explicitly states when to prefer it over fcp_menu_click or fcp_click_button, nor any prerequisites (e.g., FCP must be running).

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