terminal_write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the audit-logging of the full `data` string, the terminator behavior of `enter` including the serial carriage-return nuance, and the security constraint. It does not cover error behavior or whether writes block/fail on a dead session, so not a perfect 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then progressively finer detail (use cases, terminator semantics, security). Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition of the name or filler.

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 not be described. For a 3-parameter write tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, key parameter behavior and the critical security caveat — nothing essential is missing.

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 and largely does: it defines `data` as exact input that is audit-recorded and explains `enter` as appending the line terminator with a default implied. `session_id` is left to inference, which is reasonable given it appears across all sibling tools.

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 (session's terminal stream) with the exact-input semantics made explicit. It also names the sibling terminal_write_secret as the alternative for sensitive input, so an agent can differentiate it from the other session tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete positive guidance (commands, interactive keystrokes, nested hops like `ssh user@host`) and an explicit exclusion ('never type passwords, passphrases or other secrets here — use terminal_write_secret'), which is exactly the routing decision an agent needs.

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