kill_process

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description explicitly warns: 'This is destructive and may cause the target application to lose unsaved data.' It also discloses unintended consequences like killing all processes with a matching name (case-insensitive) and explains the graceful-then-force behavior, adding significant context not captured by annotations.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by concise parameter guidance, a clear destructive warning, and structured Args/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a destructive tool with multiple safety considerations.

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?

The description covers the essential behavioral aspects: pid/name selection, force semantics, destructive consequences, and return format (JSON with ok, killed, count). Combined with a well-described schema and annotations, the tool is fully understandable for an agent to invoke correctly and safely.

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?

The description adds semantic value by stating pid is 'preferred' and explaining the relationship between pid and name (name ignored if pid given). It also clarifies the force flag's effect. While the schema already has good descriptions, the description's concise summary and prioritization guidance provide additional meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Kill a process by PID, or all processes matching an exact name.' This clearly identifies the tool's action and scope, and differentiates it from sibling tools like list_processes (read-only) and run_command (general execution).

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?

Provides clear guidance on when to use pid vs name ('Provide either pid (preferred) or name') and explains the force flag for hard vs graceful termination. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or situations to avoid using this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for the primary use case.

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