console_key_state

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the crucial non-obvious behavior that keys can remain held across calls and must be explicitly released. It does not discuss per-VM scoping risk or what state is left behind if a release is skipped.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two operational caveats. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a destructive, non-idempotent, 3-parameter stateful tool the description omits supported key vocabulary and key-name syntax. Adequate at the conceptual level, incomplete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. The press/release wording weakly implies the down flag, but key naming format, supported key vocabulary, and vm_name targeting are never explained.

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 concrete verb pair and resource ('press or release one supported key'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does at the key level. It distinguishes itself from the chord-oriented sibling by name, though it never says what 'supported key' means, leaving key-domain ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly routes ordinary chords to console_press_keys, which is the key selection rule versus the most similar sibling. It also gives a lifecycle rule (release held keys when finished), but does not state when direct key-state control is genuinely required over the alternatives.

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