as_proc_stop

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds that the process is 'stopped' and returns final info, but does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., data loss, termination behavior). With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, the description adds minimal additional transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an Args line. All content is relevant and front-loaded. No unnecessary words or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete: it states what the tool does, the input, and the return type. However, it lacks details about error handling or behavior when the process does not exist, which could be important for a destructive operation.

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 lists the parameter `proc_id` but provides no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema's `description` field. Since schema coverage is 0% (description does not cover parameters), the description should compensate, but it merely references the schema type without adding value.

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 action ('Stop'), the resource ('managed background process'), and the identifier ('by id'). It distinguishes from sibling `as_proc_list` which lists processes.

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: to stop a process. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or cautionary notes. The destructive hint suggests care is needed, but the description lacks 'when-not-to-use' advice.

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