kill_terminal

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

'Force-kill' explicitly surfaces that this is a non-graceful, destructive operation, which is useful because no annotations are provided. However, it does not disclose side effects, irreversibility, or what happens to running tasks or processes, so the description carries only part of the behavioral burden.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: it names the action, the resource, and the scope.

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 zero-parameter utility, the description provides the essential context: what gets killed and against which configuration. It stops short of describing side effects or return value, but the low complexity and clarity of the destructive action make the omission non-critical.

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?

There are zero parameters and the schema is complete, so there is nothing to document. The phrase 'for the configured edition' clarifies that the target is determined by existing configuration rather than call arguments, which is still useful.

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 a specific destructive action (force-kill) on a specific resource (terminal processes) with a scope qualifier (configured edition). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings such as list_terminals, select_terminal, and health, which are inspection or configuration operations.

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 information about when to invoke this tool, what conditions justify a force-kill, or whether it should follow select_terminal or replace a graceful shutdown. There are no exclusions or alternatives mentioned, leaving the agent without decision guidance.

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