press_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing about the required 'app' targeting, that keystrokes are delivered asynchronously, or that high-risk presses may need the confirmation_token flow via request_confirmation — meaningful context that is absent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and inline examples; no filler or redundancy.

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 7-parameter, destructive, no-output-schema tool the description is thin: it omits the mandatory app-targeting semantics and the high-risk confirmation path, though the schema's field-level descriptions carry much of the remaining burden.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely adds value by showing the xdotool-style syntax (ctrl+v, Return, alt+left, super+c) that the bare schema text 'Key or key-combination to press' does not convey. It still says nothing about the precedence between key/keys/keycode/modifiers.

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 states a specific verb (press) and resource (key or key-combination) with concrete syntax examples. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'key', which appears to be the same or a very similar operation, nor from type_text/type.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the near-identical sibling 'key', nor when a full text-entry tool (type_text, paste_text) would be preferable. The agent is left to guess between overlapping keypress tools.

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