desktop_key

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's added value is the non-obvious 'blocked OS-escape chords are rejected under whitelist mode' constraint, which warns the agent that some valid-looking input will fail. It does not disclose whether keystrokes go to the focused window, what an error looks like, or what hold_ms/repeat do behaviorally.

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 short sentences with the core action and the syntax examples front-loaded, followed by a single relevant constraint. No filler, though the parenthetical examples duplicate the schema's own example format.

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 four-parameter input-simulation tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description omits how the target window is chosen, what happens to focus, and the meaning of repeat and into_hwnd. The whitelist note helps but does not close the 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 description coverage is only 25%: only `keys` is documented in the schema, while `repeat`, `hold_ms`, and `into_hwnd` carry no explanation. The description's 'press or hold' hints at hold_ms and mentions chords for `keys`, but it never clarifies repetition counts or what a target window handle does, so it only partly compensates for the gap.

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 gives a specific verb ('press or hold') and resource ('a key or key chord') and illustrates the accepted syntax with examples ('ctrl+s', 'alt+f4'). It implicitly separates this from a text-typing sibling via the chord examples, though it never explicitly names how it differs from desktop_type or desktop_paste.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for shortcuts and single keypresses rather than typing text. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to an alternative for plain text entry.

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