computer_press_key

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it states only the core action: a single key press. It does not explicitly say whether the key is automatically released, whether an active window/focus is required, or what other side effects may occur, though these are less critical for such a simple action.

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 four words and front-loaded with the verb and object. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description is largely enough to invoke correctly. The main missing piece is routing to the correct sibling, which is a guidance gap rather than a completeness gap.

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 documents the key parameter with examples (100% coverage), so the description adds little parameter-level value. The word 'single' is the only added semantic, clarifying that the parameter should not be a combination.

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 specifies a clear verb ('press') and resource ('key'), and the qualifier 'single' helps separate it from hotkey or type operations. It does not, however, differentiate it from computer_key_down or computer_key_up, which also act on a single key.

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 about when to choose press_key over the sibling tools such as key_down, key_up, hotkey, or type. An agent is left to infer the right conditions 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.