process_input

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only that the target is an 'interactive persistent process session', which is useful target context but discloses nothing about blocking behavior, what the input overwrites, or error semantics.

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 no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized as a fragment, though it is arguably too terse for the amount of behavior it needs to convey, which is captured under contextual completeness rather than bloating this dimension.

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 mutation tool with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description omits critical context: that a session must already exist, whether the write appends a newline, whether it blocks, and how failures surface. Annotations carry the safety profile, but the remaining gaps are substantial.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The word 'input' loosely maps to the input parameter, but sessionId, and especially the newline default of true, receive no clarification.

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 clear verb (Send) and resource (input) against a specific target (interactive persistent process session). It is distinguishable from siblings like exec or process_start because it targets an existing session, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., a session must first be created via process_start), and no comparison to alternatives like exec or process_start. The phrase 'persistent process session' weakly implies the context but leaves everything to inference.

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