Hold Key

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

Annotations already indicate the action is not read-only and is destructive, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds the 30-second limit, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose what happens at the end of the duration (e.g., automatic release, failure), or why the action is considered destructive, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 consists of one clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part contributes meaning: the action, the target, and the duration limit. It is an exemplary model of concise tool descriptions.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema, and the description covers only the core action and duration cap. It does not explain when to choose this over the sibling 'key' tool, the role of 'app_ref', or the behavior surrounding the 30-second limit (e.g., whether it auto-releases or errors). Given the simple action, the description is workable but leaves several decision-relevant gaps.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds the 'up to 30 seconds' constraint, which clarifies the duration parameter's limit, but it does not add meaning to 'text', 'strategy', or 'return_state' beyond what the schema provides. This is consistent with the baseline 3 for high schema coverage with minor added value.

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 uses a specific verb ('hold') and resource ('key or chord'), and adds the key constraint 'up to 30 seconds.' This makes the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from the sibling 'key' tool, so it loses a point for failing to differentiate from an ambiguously named 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'key', 'type', or 'set_value.' The phrase 'up to 30 seconds' implies use for sustained key presses, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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