stop_process

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation by stating that the operation stops both the process and its child tree, and that it applies only to managed background processes. No contradiction with 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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'stop', 'managed background process', 'child tree', and 'by PID' all carry useful information.

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 fairly simple destructive operation, the combination of schema, annotations, and description covers the essential invocation details. The description could mention return behavior or stale-process handling, but those are not critical for correctly identifying and invoking the tool.

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 100%, with both pid and process_id clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the general 'by PID' mechanism and 'managed background process' context, which does not significantly expand on the structured parameter definitions.

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 uses a specific verb, 'Stop', and identifies the resource as 'a managed background process and its child tree by PID.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like process_status, start_process, and exec_process without needing to open the schema.

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 provides clear context: this is for stopping managed background processes via their PID. The schema further reinforces that the PID comes from start_process. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but no sibling tool appears to perform the same stop action.

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