dolphin_press_wiimote_buttons

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior: 'DESTRUCTIVE to Wii Remote state... Anything you don't include is released.' It also describes the return format. This covers the key behavioral trait beyond the input schema.

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 structured into labeled sections (PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS) and every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, making scanning efficient.

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 simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage constraints, behavioral effect, and return value. It addresses the absence of annotations by disclosing destructive nature and limitations, making it self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, but the description adds value by listing valid button names and explaining the semantics of omission (released state). This supplements the schema's boolean key expectation and clarifies inventory through natural language.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set Wii Remote button state on a given port for one frame's worth of input.' It identifies the specific verb (set), resource (Wii Remote button state), and scope (one frame, port). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dolphin_press_gc_buttons or dolphin_set_wiimote_pointer.

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 lists supported buttons and notes that motion/pointer input and attachments are not covered, advising that games requiring those have limited control. It provides direct context on when to use this tool and its limitations, guiding the agent away from misuse.

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