input_sequence

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral load and does so richly: relative-only mouse movement, the corner-sweep workaround to pin the cursor, and the press/release decomposition of a click. It also states that unknown fields are rejected with a helpful error, which the annotations do not convey.

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 with the core action, then progressively details the non-obvious relative-positioning constraint, the workaround, click composition, and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 complex input tool with no output schema, the description covers the operationally critical quirks an agent would otherwise get wrong (relative movement, click decomposition). It omits timing-model guidance beyond the schema's own t/delay_ms descriptions, but the schema handles those.

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 genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining the relative coordinate semantics and the corner-pinning technique for reaching absolute positions, which the schema's x_rel/y_rel descriptions do not cover.

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 ('inject') and resource ('timed sequence of key, mouse, and wheel events'), and the phrase 'complex input patterns or recorded replays' sets it apart from the single-event siblings input_type and input_key.

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?

'For complex input patterns or recorded replays' clearly signals the context in which this tool is preferred over simpler input tools, but it never names the alternatives (input_key/input_type) or states an explicit exclusion, leaving the routing slightly implicit.

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