voltage_execute_burst

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false, and openWorldHint: true. The description adds critical behavioral context: it defaults to dry_run ('pass dry_run=false to actually inject') and notes the safety policy. It also explains that this is a manual override path. These details go beyond the annotations and inform the agent about side effects and prerequisites.

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 well-structured and efficient: it leads with the core action, then gives usage scenarios, then provides a syntax example and necessary caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the dry_run warning is front-loaded within the critical context. No fluff or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (custom syntax, safety policy, dry_run default) and that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, when to use, how to construct the burst (via example and reference), and the dry_run behavior. The only gap is a full in-place explanation of the syntax and label, but the reference to voltage_reference and the presence of an output schema mitigate this. Overall, it is nearly complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 compensate. It provides a concrete syntax example (`m:640,360;c:l;w:120;t:"hello";k:enter`) and explains the dry_run parameter clearly. However, burst syntax is not fully documented (only a pointer to voltage_reference) and the label parameter is not explained beyond its default. This is partial compensation—helpful but not exhaustive.

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 action ('Execute one input burst yourself') and the resource (burst), and immediately differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'bypassing the local models entirely' and 'moments that need your judgement rather than the actuator's'. It also names the exact use case (opening applications, clicking confirmed targets, typing exact text) and points to voltage_reference for full syntax, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('For moments that need your judgement rather than the actuator's', 'the fastest way to sanity-check that input injection works at all'), implies alternatives by referencing voltage_reference for syntax, and reminds that 'the safety policy still applies'. This gives an agent clear decision-making guidance without ambiguity.

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