Write Leased Terminal Input

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description usefully adds that this path is gated by a Session lease owned by another operation. Beyond that it says nothing about failure modes, such as an expired lease or an owner-capability mismatch, or about the irreversibility of bytes already delivered to a live terminal.

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 that names the mechanism, the constraint, and the alternative with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema, full annotation coverage and complete parameter descriptions, the description only needs to establish purpose and routing, which it does. The remaining gap is lease-lifecycle behavior on failure, which matters for a destructive write but is arguably out of scope for this tool.

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 session_id, data, owner, encoding and actor are all documented in the schema, including the 1 MiB ceiling and the 'no line ending added' behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the structured schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource (write raw bytes through an active Session lease) and constrains the scope to managed multi-step operations. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling terminal_write, so an agent can pick between the two without inspecting either schema.

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 routes normal terminal input to terminal_write and reserves this tool for lease-holding callers, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of covering the lease lifecycle (acquiring or renewing a lease, or what to do when the lease has expired), which are the main adjacent decisions an agent faces.

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