stop_review_server

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses a safety behavior: it refuses arbitrary PIDs and only terminates session-owned subprocesses. However it omits idempotency, behavior when no server is running, and why a session_id is needed if ownership is already implied by the MCP session.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and its scope, followed immediately by the safety constraint. Zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the safety constraint is captured. But for a lifecycle tool with an undocumented required parameter and an unresolved tension between 'this MCP session' and an explicit session_id argument, the description leaves real gaps.

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 single session_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never says what session_id is, where to obtain it, or how it relates to 'this MCP session'. The ownership phrasing arguably muddies rather than clarifies the parameter.

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?

States a specific verb ('Stop') and a scoped resource ('the subprocess owned by this MCP session'), which clearly separates it from start_review_server and get_review_server_status. It never names the review server explicitly, but the scope and verb are unambiguous.

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 'never accept an arbitrary PID' clause is an implied usage constraint that shapes when/how to call it, but there is no explicit statement of preconditions (e.g. server must be running) or a named alternative such as get_review_server_status for checking state first.

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