Create an Orca terminal

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state. The description adds one meaningful detail -- the terminal is created 'empty' (no command is started) -- but says nothing about lifecycle, cleanup, resource cost, or whether repeated calls stack up terminals, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 zero waste. It is efficient but also thin, with no second sentence adding the operationally important detail the agent needs.

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 creation tool with no output schema, the description should say what the caller receives -- the terminal identifier needed to drive orca_terminal_send/read/wait. That linkage is entirely absent, as is any note that the worktree must exist or that the terminal persists afterward.

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 50%: the 'worktree' selector is richly documented in the schema (five selector forms plus a pointer to orca_worktree_list), but the description itself contributes nothing. The undocumented 'title' parameter gets no explanation of its purpose or default, and the description never references the required worktree selector.

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 ('Open a new empty terminal') plus the scoping container ('in a worktree'), which is enough to distinguish it from orca_terminal_read/send/list. It stops short of naming a sibling or contrasting with orca_agent_launch, so it lands at 4 rather than 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to use this or orca_agent_launch when it wants something running in a worktree, nor whether the worktree must already exist.

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