shell_write

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full behavioral-disclosure burden, but it only adds an unspecified 'active' qualifier and UTF-8 encoding. It does not disclose whether the write blocks, whether it appends to the process stdin, whether newline termination is required, what happens if the execution is not active, or any buffering semantics.

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 a single front-loaded sentence ('Write...') with zero filler; every word earns its place. The imprecision of 'active' is a substance problem, not an organization problem.

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?

Although an output schema exists (relieving the return-value burden), the input side is underserved: 3 required parameters at 0% schema coverage, an undefined lifecycle state ('active'), and no guidance on where this fits among 6 sibling tools. An agent cannot confidently invoke or route to this tool based on the description alone.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps 'text' as the UTF-8 content to write. It never explains the distinct roles of shell_id vs exec_id, how they relate (execution belongs to shell), or any constraints on which combinations are valid, so the agent must guess at the IDs' semantics.

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 ('Write'), a resource ('the active execution'), and a scope ('UTF-8 text'), and the write verb clearly distinguishes it from siblings like shell_read and shell_signal. However, 'active execution' is ambiguous: it reads like a singleton selection, while the schema requires an explicit shell_id and exec_id, leaving the execution-lifecycle meaning unexplained.

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 no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. Among 6 siblings (shell_open, shell_exec, shell_read, shell_signal, shell_list, shell_close), an agent gets no help deciding that this tool is for sending input after shell_exec, nor why it is preferable to shell_signal for process interaction.

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