apple_keyboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only lists actions without mentioning important behaviors such as the confirm parameter for protected actions, potential side effects on the system, or whether actions execute immediately. The schema's confirm description is not part of the description field.

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 a single sentence plus a list, front-loaded with the core purpose. It is concise and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide more context. It omits the confirm flow, preview behavior, and any warning about protected/destructive actions, making it incomplete for safe 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?

The input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, including detailed descriptions for each action enum value and the text, combo, and confirm fields. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond listing action names, which are already present in the schema.

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 as simulating keyboard input, with a specific verb and resource. It lists the available actions, which helps identify the tool's function, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like apple_clipboard or apple_tts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for using copy/paste actions versus apple_clipboard, or when text input is appropriate. There are no exclusions or conditional use cases.

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