Press a key combination

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add real value by disclosing that key names are backend-dependent (xdotool for X11, xkb keysyms for Wayland). It omits other behavioral facts: whether the target window must be focused, how `window_id`/`id` change dispatch, and what errors occur with an invalid combo or no open display.

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?

Two tight sentences: purpose/examples first, then the backend naming caveat. No filler and everything is front-loaded.

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 4-parameter, unannotated input tool with no output schema, the description covers key syntax and backend naming but leaves window targeting and failure behavior unexplained. Adequate to invoke correctly in the common case, incomplete for the targeted cases.

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?

The schema documents `id` and `hold_ms` but leaves `combo` and `window_id` bare (50% coverage). The description compensates well for the key parameter via syntax examples, but says nothing about `window_id`, leaving the targeting semantics of one parameter undocumented in both places.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Presses a key or chord') and backs it with concrete examples ('Return', 'ctrl+alt+Return', 'shift+Tab'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `type` tool by emphasizing single keys/chords rather than text, but never names that alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied through the examples; there is no explicit statement of when to reach for `key` versus `type`, or when `window_id`/`id` targeting is needed. An agent can infer the context but must reason about boundaries itself.

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