Send an input event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explains the event types and their parameters, which helps an agent understand what data to send. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or whether the connection must be active, beyond the implied presence of a connectionId. This is adequate for a straightforward send action but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 only two sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every phrase adds value – the first specifies the action, the second clarifies per-kind parameter usage and directs to the companion list tool. There is no redundancy or filler.

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?

While the description and schema cover most aspects, there is a notable gap: the schema's required fields only include connectionId, kind, and inputId, but the description does not explicitly state that value is required for binary/analogue or that x/y are required for motion. This could lead an agent to omit necessary parameters. The output schema exists, and the description mentions the prerequisite for IDs, but the missing conditional requirements reduce completeness.

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?

The schema already covers most parameters (83% schema description coverage), and the description adds meaningful clarification for the kind-dependent fields. It explains that 'binary takes value 0 or 1; analogue takes a single float; motion takes x and y,' which is more explicit than the schema's per-field notes and helps agents understand how to construct the request correctly.

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's function: 'Send one input event.' It enumerates the three input kinds (binary, analogue, motion) and their respective data formats, making it distinct from sibling tools like teleport_set_pose or teleport_raw_command. The verb 'send' and resource 'input event' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage context by explaining how each kind expects its value ('binary takes value 0 or 1; analogue takes a single float; motion takes x and y') and explicitly directs users to 'Use teleport_list_inputs for the ids the server expects.' This gives a concrete prerequisite and a companion tool, though it does not mention when to avoid this tool or explicit alternatives.

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