power_shell_write

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

Given no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical behavioral trait: concurrent access corrupts the output buffer, which is a non-obvious constraint. However, it does not mention side effects of the command itself (e.g., whether it modifies the session state) or expected output behavior beyond buffer handling. The description adds the 'clear' flag context, which briefly explains the parameter but lacks detail on output format.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes a critical caution efficiently. No wasted words.

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 write tool with good schema coverage and a clear description, the description covers the crucial concurrency warning, but it lacks information on output format or post-execution steps. The command syntax is simple, so a 3 reflects that it's a concise definition but not a complete one.

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 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds context on the 'clear' parameter (buffer clearing behavior) and relates session_id to power_shell_open, which clarifies usage. This additional context exceeds the schema baseline, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Send' and resource 'command to a PowerShell shell session', which identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes it from siblings like power_shell_read and power_shell_exec by focusing on writing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 provides an explicit 'Do NOT call concurrently' warning with sibling tools, which is strong usage guidance. It doesn't specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs exec), but the concurrency constraint is a clear usage rule.

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