send_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses the pause requirement, what frame steps actually do (process animations, state machines, zone detection), and the auto-pause/resume side effect of auto_pause. It omits failure modes (e.g., what happens if frame steps are used while unpaused) and any notion of return values.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then structured bullet list of entry types, then the pause/auto_pause caveat, then a worked example. Every element earns its place, though the example is somewhat long and the 'same params as send_event' cross-reference is doing work the text could state directly.

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 two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: input shape, ordering semantics, pause prerequisite, and a usage example. It leaves return-value behavior and error conditions unspecified, which is a gap given no output schema exists to fill 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it enumerates the two entry shapes ({type,x,y,...} vs {step:N}) that the schema only gestures at with 'event objects and frame steps,' and explains what a step does mechanically. auto_pause's semantics are also echoed usefully.

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+resource ('send a sequence of input events with game frame steps') and immediately frames the scope that separates it from send_event (singular) and step: multi-step interactions in one call. The concrete use cases (drag-and-drop, slider scrub, card hand drag) make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Clear about when this tool is needed (multi-step interactions) and states an operational prerequisite: the game must be paused for frame steps, with auto_pause:true as the remedy. It implies the sibling send_event for single events via 'same params as send_event' but never explicitly says 'use send_event instead for a single event,' so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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