Send input to an Orca terminal

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

Annotations already declare this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds useful behavior beyond them: enter submits, interrupt sends Ctrl+C, and shell text executes as a command. It does not describe return values or failure behavior, but the key interaction semantics are disclosed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently covers normal input, submission, interruption, and shell execution.

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 destructive, non-idempotent terminal-input tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential interaction model. It could say more about results or error handling, but annotations and schema carry the remaining structured details.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of enter and interrupt, and the terminal-handle parameter is documented in the schema itself; text is described functionally as input to type or execute.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Type text into a terminal or agent session.' It also clarifies the distinct shell-execution behavior, making it distinguishable from read/list/wait siblings, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives clear usage context for the boolean flags: 'set enter to submit it, or interrupt to send Ctrl+C.' It also explains that text in a shell terminal runs as a command, but does not state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives.

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