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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine scoping context: this only touches ReMCP terminal sessions, not arbitrary PIDs. It stops short of describing what force termination does to child processes or whether the session record survives, which would matter for a destructive operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the primary use case front-loaded and the disambiguation second. Each sentence earns its place by carrying distinct routing information.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations fully cover the safety profile, so the description's only real burden is routing, which it handles well. The remaining gap is the semantics of "force" (immediate kill vs. graceful stop, effect on spawned children) for a destructive two-parameter tool.

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 100%, with pid documented as the session pid from start_process and device as the id from list_devices. The description echoes that provenance but adds no format, range, or error semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names a specific action on a specific resource: stopping a process session created by start_process. It immediately distinguishes itself from the similarly named kill_process sibling, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Both sides of the decision are stated explicitly: use this for sessions created by start_process (runaway builds, orphaned servers), and use kill_process for an arbitrary OS PID that is not a ReMCP terminal session. No inference is required.

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