Write Session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden yet only says it 'writes' input. It does not disclose what happens if the session is inactive, whether input is queued or sent immediately, error behavior, or that is_sensitive affects recorded history (that detail lives only in the schema). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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 tight sentence with no padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than ideal economy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and all three params are documented in the schema. Still, with no annotations and no usage or error-handling context, the description is only minimally viable for a state-mutating terminal 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 the schema already documents session_id, data, and is_sensitive (including the [REDACTED] masking behavior). The description adds no param-level meaning, so the baseline 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 (Writes) and resource (input data to an active terminal session), which clearly separates it from read_session and create_session. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling alternative, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use write_session versus create_session or read_session, nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing an already-active session. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'active terminal session'.

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