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

The annotations already declare the key safety profile: destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds only that the target is a terminal session, without explaining consequences, child-process handling, or permission requirements. It does not contradict the annotations, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond them.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded. The second sentence, about how the command may be referenced as "DC: ...", does not help an agent select or invoke the tool and is unnecessary noise for this definition.

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 destructive terminal-session termination tool with a close sibling like kill_process, the definition omits important context: when this tool should be chosen over alternatives, what happens to the terminated session, and what pid refers to. Annotations cover the general destructive nature, but they do not fill these selection and parameter gaps.

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 only 50%: deviceId is documented, but pid has no schema description. The description does not mention either parameter or explain what pid identifies, so it does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: "Force terminate a running terminal session." It is clear what the tool does and distinguishes terminal sessions from general process termination. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool kill_process, so it falls short of a 5.

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 states the action but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus kill_process, shutdown, or interact_with_process. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual conditions beyond the implied target of a running terminal session.

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