use_terminal

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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only, not destructive, and open-world. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it never transmits a login or password, and it names the recovery action when the open account is wrong. What remains undisclosed is the effect or result of a successful attach.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The sentence fragments around the credential note are slightly disjointed but still easy to parse.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the credential-safety and account-mismatch cases well. It omits what a successful attach produces and how terminal_id is obtained, leaving modest gaps for an agent to fill.

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% and the single parameter terminal_id is never mentioned in the description, so no meaning is added beyond the schema. Because there is only one required string parameter, the gap is small, but the description offers no hint about where terminal_id comes from (presumably list_terminals).

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: 'Attach the API to a terminal that is already logged in.' An agent can tell this binds an existing session rather than launching one. It does not explicitly name siblings such as launch_terminal or add_terminal, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the precondition 'already logged in' and the instruction to log in from the terminal window if the account does not match. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over launch_terminal or add_terminal, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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