msf_process_write

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, non-readonly, open-world, and non-idempotent, while the description adds important behavior: no automatic newline, direct control characters in PTY mode, EOF via close_stdin in pipe mode, and the PTY limitation on closing stdin. It does not cover permissions or errors, but it substantially supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The opening sentence front-loads the core action and constraint, and every later sentence adds mode-specific operational detail. There is no redundant restatement of the schema or annotations.

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 present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the mode-specific stdin behavior an agent needs to call the tool correctly. The main remaining gap is process_id semantics and lack of sibling routing guidance, so it is complete but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains data's text/binary form and no-newline behavior and explains close_stdin's EOF role in pipe mode, but it never describes process_id, leaving one of three parameters 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?

The description states a specific verb and target: write text or {$binary: base64} to stdin, and specifies that no newline is added. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling writers such as msf_console_write or msf_file_write, so it is clear but lacks full sibling 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?

It gives actionable usage context: commands need an explicit newline, control characters can be sent directly in PTY mode, close_stdin=true sends EOF in pipe mode, and PTY stdin cannot be closed separately. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus console/file writers.

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