process_write

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

Annotations already show destructiveHint=true, so the mutation is expected. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the restriction on recovered processes and the requirement that the process be live. This goes beyond what the annotations alone reveal.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core operation, the second provides an important limitation. No filler or redundant repetition of schema details.

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 mutating tool with complete parameter documentation and destructive annotation, the description effectively communicates the core behavior and key edge case (recovered processes). It does not describe return values, but no output schema exists and the essential invocation context is present.

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 input schema already documents all parameters including pid, input, end, and process_id. The description reinforces that input is UTF-8 text but adds no significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Write UTF-8 text to the standard input of a live process started by start_process.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like read_process_output, process_status, and exec_process. The target resource and action are unambiguous.

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 clearly scopes the tool to live processes started by start_process, and explicitly warns that recovered processes cannot have stdin reattached. This gives useful context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it beyond the recovery caveat.

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