power

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds important nuance: kill specifically requires destructive access, implying other actions (start/stop/restart) may not. This goes beyond the flat annotation and clarifies behavioral requirements.

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 short, front-loaded sentences list all actions immediately, with the additional destructive-access note as a second sentence. No redundant words or filler.

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?

Despite annotations covering destructive intent, the description lacks crucial context: no explanation of the optional server_id parameter, no return value expectations, no prerequisites, and no guidance on when to use this tool. For a control action with side effects, this is under-specified.

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 explain parameters, but it does not mention signal or server_id explicitly. It only lists action words that imply the signal enum values, and entirely ignores the optional server_id and its default/null behavior.

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 tool's purpose: 'Start, stop, restart, or force-kill a server.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the listed actions distinguish it from sibling tools like server_status or update_server.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only notes that 'Kill also requires destructive access,' which is a safety condition, not a usage directive. There is no mention of when to prefer this over send_console_command or server_status.

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