deprioritize_process

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the core action (reducing CPU priority) and auto-selection behavior when target_pid is None. However, it does not mention error handling, permission requirements, or reversibility, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 very concise: three short sentences plus structured args/returns. It front-loads the core purpose and usage guideline, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core effect, auto-selection, and return type. It could add more on side effects or permissions, but given the low complexity, it is reasonably complete.

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 parameter's schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'target_pid' as the process ID to deprioritize and specifies that None auto-selects the highest CPU consumer, adding critical meaning beyond the basic type definition.

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 reduces CPU priority of a process, with a specific verb ('reduces') and resource ('process'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'throttle_process' by explaining it is the same function with clearer language.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool instead of 'throttle' ('Use this if throttle sounds too aggressive'), providing clear context for choosing between aliases. It does not cover comparisons with other siblings like 'prioritize_process', but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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