set_hotkey

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool 'triggers an immediate re-registration', which is a key behavioral trait. However, it lacks information on permissions, error handling, or whether the change is persistent or temporary.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second lists valid keys, and the third provides format and side effect. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, valid values, format, and that re-registration happens. It does not explain error scenarios or that it overrides existing bindings, but it is largely adequate for a straightforward tool.

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%, but the description adds value by listing the allowed action keys (enums) and explaining the accelerator format with examples (Electron-style) and a caution about reserved combos. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 rebinds a keyboard shortcut, specifying verb 'rebind' and resource 'keyboard shortcut'. It lists specific action keys and accelerator format, distinguishing itself from sibling tools like list_hotkeys (listing) and reset_hotkeys (resetting).

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 implies usage for changing hotkey bindings, but does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives like reset_hotkeys. No exclusions or contextual guidance are provided, relying on the agent's understanding of the sibling tool names.

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