process_write

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

Discloses that written input reappears in the output stream as echo, cautions against re-sending it, and explains that KeyboardInterrupt traceback is expected. This goes well beyond any annotation (none provided) and covers critical PTY behavior.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by necessary behavioral caveats and usage guidance. It is relatively long but every sentence provides value, and the structure is logical.

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?

Covers the main usage, conditional availability, echo behavior, interrupt handling, and fallback alternatives. No output schema exists, but the description adequately addresses the tool's complexity.

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 already fully describes both parameters (id and content) with 100% coverage. The description reinforces that content is written to stdin but adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb 'Write' and resource 'process's stdin', clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like process_read or process_signal. It also notes the availability constraint 'while process is running'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool for writing input, and directs to process_signal/process_kill as fallbacks for interrupts. Provides detailed usage instructions for sending Ctrl+C via two separate writes, including the reasoning about ConPTY line-buffering.

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