Send Remote Key

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explicitly stating that each key advances the UI and repeated calls are not a no-op, which aligns with idempotentHint=false. It also conveys the side-effect profile ('mutates on-screen state') beyond what the annotations alone imply.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core action, the behavioral caution, and the routing alternative are each compact and front-loaded. Every sentence contributes to correct usage.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, its side effect profile, and how to choose it versus the closest sibling, leaving no critical gap.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the key enum and device semantics. The description adds examples of valid keys but does not materially extend meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

Description states a specific verb-resource pair: send one ECP remote key to a Roku device, with concrete examples. It is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like input_text and ecp_post by describing its exact role as a remote-press mirror.

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 names the alternative input_text and gives the condition for choosing it ('to type characters into a focused text field'), while reserving keypress for navigation/transport keys. This is direct when-not guidance that enables correct tool selection.

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