herdr_agent_send_keys

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the one-word 'Destructive.' merely restates structured data without adding context. It does not say what gets destroyed, that the confirm flag gates execution, or what the effect on a live agent session is.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the hazard warning follows. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, so conciseness itself is not the problem.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three required parameters and no output schema, the description omits the mandatory confirm=true requirement, the nature of the destruction, and how it relates to sibling input tools. An agent could call this incorrectly without the extra context.

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 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds nothing about the required confirm=true gate or the semantics of the keys array beyond the schema's own 'esc or ctrl+c' example.

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 (send) and resource (logical keys) plus the destination (interactive agent UI), so the agent knows this injects input rather than reading or prompting. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close relatives like herdr_agent_prompt or herdr_pane_run, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 guidance on when to use this versus herdr_agent_prompt (text prompt) or herdr_pane_run (shell command), and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a live, focused agent. The agent must infer the selection rule from the name alone.

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