throttle_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 behavioral trait of reducing CPU priority and auto-selection, but does not mention potential side effects, reversibility, or permission requirements. This is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 concise: three sentences and an aliases note. It front-loads the purpose, followed by aliases and parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no 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 parameter and no output schema, the description covers input behavior, default action, and return format (confirmation). It could mention response structure or error cases, but is sufficient for this complexity level.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining that target_pid defaults to None and when None, it auto-throttles the highest CPU consumer. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Reduce CPU priority of a process to prevent overheating', specifying the verb, resource, and goal. It distinguishes from siblings like prioritize_process by focusing on reduction and overheating prevention, and mentions auto-selection of highest CPU consumer.

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 implies usage for reducing CPU priority to prevent overheating, and explains that omitting target_pid auto-throttles the top CPU consumer. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like deprioritize_process or prioritize_process, nor does it provide when-not-to-use scenarios.

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