computer_key_up

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal a meaningful behavioral condition: the key must already be held. However, it does not disclose what happens if no key is held (no-op vs. error) or whether any status/result is returned.

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?

Four words with zero filler: it identifies the action and the target resource immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter, low-complexity tool with an output schema, this description is largely complete. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit link to computer_key_down as the paired operation that creates the held state.

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 input schema already fully documents the single 'key' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema adequately handles this dimension.

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 precise verb and resource: release a key that is currently held. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like computer_key_down (press/hold) and computer_press_key (tap), as well as from mouse_up.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'held key' implies pairing with computer_key_down, but the description does not state this prerequisite or mention that single taps should use press_key instead.

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