emit_warp_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it discloses the single most non-obvious trait: this tool does not emit anything itself, it returns a printf string that a separate execution step must run. It does not cover validation of event_type/payload, error behavior, or the exact shape of the returned string, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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 sentences, no filler, and the critical constraint (the returned printf must be executed in a pane) is front-loaded right after the purpose statement rather than buried.

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 three-parameter builder with no output schema and no annotations, the essential two-step workflow is explained and the return value is characterized ('the returned printf'). Minor gaps remain: the precise return format (e.g. whether it is bare printf text or wrapped in prose) and how invalid event_type or malformed payload JSON are handled.

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 baseline is 3 — event_type enumerations and the payload default are already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, such as what each event_type signifies to Warp's UI or the required structure of the payload JSON.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Build a printf invocation') with a specific resource ('OSC 777 warp://cli-agent JSON event into Warp's notification UI'), which is far more precise than the name alone suggests. It also implicitly separates itself from execute_command by framing itself as a builder whose artifact must be executed elsewhere.

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 operational context: the result must be run inside a Warp pane (e.g. via execute_command) because MCP stdout is the JSON-RPC channel. That tells the agent exactly how to consume the output, though it never states when this tool is preferable to alternatives such as set_notification_preference or send_to_session, nor any exclusion conditions.

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