opencode_tui_submit_prompt

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent action. The description adds the behavioral context that it mimics pressing Enter, which implies it triggers whatever action the current prompt would trigger. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to the prompt after submission (e.g., whether it's cleared) or whether confirmation is needed.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Submit the current prompt in the TUI') and immediately clarifies with the Enter-key analogy. Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it doesn't clarify what 'current prompt' means in the context of the TUI state, or whether the directory parameter scopes which TUI session receives the submission. Given the destructive annotation, a bit more context about the effect would improve completeness.

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 100%, so the single 'directory' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about how the directory parameter affects the submission, but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('the current prompt in the TUI'), and clarifies the action is equivalent to pressing Enter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like opencode_tui_append_prompt or opencode_tui_clear_prompt, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

The description implies the tool is used when a prompt has been composed in the TUI and needs to be submitted, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like opencode_tui_execute_command or opencode_message_send. The 'equivalent to pressing Enter' analogy provides some context, but no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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