Send input

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered by structured data. The description adds the genuinely useful buffering trait — input is queued and only takes effect on the next game_step — but says nothing about preconditions (must the game be running or paused?), invalid-code handling, or whether inputs can be cancelled.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the highest-value information (the action→parameter mapping) is front-loaded. Nothing needs to be cut.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers mode dispatch, argument formats, and timing semantics. Remaining gaps — preconditions such as required game state and error behavior — are modest rather than critical.

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 25%, so the description carries real weight here: it maps the action enum to the parameters each mode consumes (press/release → code; tap/pointer_down/pointer_move → x, y), supplies KeyboardEvent.code examples, and clarifies that x/y are 'logical' coordinates. It leaves pointer_up unexplained and gives no coordinate-space details (origin, units).

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 ('Keyboard or pointer input') and immediately decomposes it into the two input modes (key/press vs pointer), which distinguishes it from siblings like game_state or game_step. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the other game_* control tools.

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 closing sentence 'Input takes effect on the next game_step' implies the intended workflow (send input, then advance with game_step), which is useful sequencing guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative, so usage remains implied rather than stated.

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