Write To Terminal

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

Beyond the annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: it returns immediately without waiting for the command to finish, auto-creates the default session, enforces a dangerous-command safety filter, and can fail with a readOnlyMode error. This gives the agent a clear picture of consequences and side effects.

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 description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and Errors sections, and it front-loads the core behavior. It is somewhat verbose and partially duplicates the schema, but the additional operational details are relevant and not 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the key contextual gaps: the return behavior, the follow-up read_terminal_output step, error conditions, and safety checks. Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough information to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and defaults (100% coverage). The description's Args section mostly paraphrases the schema, adding only minor context like "default shell" and the dangerousPatterns config reference, so it does not substantially expand parameter understanding beyond the structured schema.

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 resource: it "writes a command or text into a session's shell input, exactly as if a person typed it, then presses Enter." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_terminal_output, open_terminal_session, and send_control_character.

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 gives actionable workflow guidance: use read_terminal_output afterward to see results, and for non-default sessions call open_terminal_session or list_terminal_sessions first. It also explains when confirm=true is required. It does not explicitly contrast itself with send_control_character, but the context is otherwise clear.

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