terminal_write

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

Adds important behavioral details beyond annotations: newline handling is the caller's responsibility, stdin can optionally be closed, accepted_bytes means transport acceptance rather than application acknowledgement, and blind retries after INPUT_BACKPRESSURE are warned against. These are non-obvious operational semantics that materially help correct invocation.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler; the core action and key caveats are front-loaded and each sentence carries useful information.

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 mutation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical operational caveats and return-value semantics. It still lacks an explanation of session_id and explicit sibling routing, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that text is exact UTF-8 and explains newline and close_stdin behavior, but it never explains the required session_id parameter, leaving one required parameter undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ('Write') and resource ('exact UTF-8 text to the running process'), so it is not tautological and is immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings like terminal_read, terminal_start, or terminal_terminate, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Implies the tool should be used against an already-running process and gives a caveat about retrying after INPUT_BACKPRESSURE, but does not explicitly say when to use this versus terminal_read, terminal_start, or terminal_terminate. Usage is inferable but not clearly routed.

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