Walk the player the way a key does

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that it drives the engine's own input path, the side effects that follow (step count, encounter roll, player-touch events), the four conditions that end the walk early, and the plugin prerequisite (RMMZLiveBridge, not Allow Eval). This is exactly the behavioral context annotations would otherwise provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and return shape before the rationale, and most sentences earn their place. The live_key comparison and side-effect sentences are valuable but dense; a slightly tighter phrasing would lose nothing.

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?

With no output schema, the description still tells the agent what comes back ('where they really got to and what stopped them'), what interrupts the walk, and what environment is required. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and every parameter is documented in-schema (cells, numpad direction, timeoutMs), so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces cells semantics but adds no format detail beyond the schema, which is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource behavior ('Hold an arrow key until the player has arrived `cells` cells away') and states what it answers with. It explicitly contrasts itself with live_key, so an agent can distinguish it from its closest sibling without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this instead of live_key whenever the intent is go-there rather than press-this,' and justifies it with the frame-timing constraint on key presses. This is a when-to-use plus a named alternative and the condition that selects it.

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