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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: a newline is appended by default (overridable), and blocking with waitMs/waitForPrompt changes the return to JSON output. It still doesn't explain what 'destructive' means here (typing into a live process) or what happens without a wait.

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 tight sentences with no waste; the primary action and its default side effect come first, and the conditional return behavior follows immediately.

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 does explain the conditional JSON return, which is helpful. But for a 7-parameter destructive tool it omits what happens in the non-waiting case, error/ambiguity behavior, and the session/device prerequisites, leaving gaps an agent must guess at.

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 only 29% across 7 params. The description usefully explains the newline default and the waitMs/waitForPrompt effect, and deviceId/workSessionId carry their own schema descriptions, but it adds nothing for 'input'/'id' formatting or the waitMs ceiling (30000). Baseline 3 for a low-coverage schema that is only partially compensated.

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 and resource ('Type text into a start_process session') and names the target session type, which distinguishes it from siblings like process_output and run_command. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies the usage context (driving an interactive start_process session) and hints at when to use the wait options, but never states when to choose this over process_output, run_command, or stop_process, nor any preconditions like needing a live session.

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