chrome_press_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'as a trusted key event' is genuine added context (events are dispatched as trusted rather than synthetic), but it is not elaborated on and no focus/consequence behavior is disclosed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that gives the action and the input format with zero filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 five-parameter action tool with annotations present and no output schema, the definition plus schema descriptions cover what an agent needs to invoke it (target, focus, staleness guard). Only minor behavioral detail is missing, which is acceptable given schema richness.

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 80% and the required 'key' parameter has no schema description, so the examples ('Control+a' chord syntax) materially compensate by showing the accepted input format. The remaining focus/tab/frame semantics are already documented 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?

States a specific verb plus resource ('Press a key or chord') and grounds it with concrete examples ('Enter', 'Tab', 'Escape', 'Control+a') that clearly distinguish it from text-typing siblings like chrome_type. Strong and specific, though it never explicitly names or routes away from a sibling tool.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus chrome_type or browser_click, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the examples, leaving an agent to infer the right context.

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