terminal_connect

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

Annotations only cover safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, non-idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds the genuinely important behavior: a one-time human approval is required, and what that approval actually grants (observation, on-demand screenshots, AI editing, or input control) varies by invitation type.

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?

One front-loaded sentence leads with the action, then the approval condition, then the per-invitation-type consequences. Dense but every clause carries information; only mild cleanup would be possible.

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 connection tool with no output schema, the approval-flow and outcome descriptions are valuable, but the two undocumented parameters and the absence of any note on reconnect/resume behavior leave meaningful gaps.

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% for both parameters, so the description carries the full burden and does not explain what "url" should contain (invitation URL? terminal ID?) or what "resume" does. An agent cannot reliably populate either parameter from this text.

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 ("Join") and resource ("invited device Terminal"), and goes further by distinguishing invitation types and what each grants. It is clearly separable from siblings like terminal_disconnect, terminal_input, and terminal_events, though it does not name them.

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?

Describes the approval flow and the differing outcomes per invitation type, which implicitly tells the agent what to expect on invocation. However, it never states when this tool should be chosen over alternatives such as apps_launch or terminal_input, leaving routing to inference.

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