cb_kill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Kill' signals a destructive action and 'confirm: Required' suggests a safety gate, but the description is contradicted by the input schema, which shows confirm has a default of false and is not required. This leaves the agent uncertain about actual safeguards and consequences.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no filler. The main purpose is stated in the first sentence. However, the inaccurate 'confirm: Required' line weakens the value of the otherwise concise structure.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, the description is too thin. It lacks context about what happens to the job after killing, whether the operation is reversible, what the output schema represents, and how to properly set the confirm parameter. The schema contradiction makes the tool unsafe to invoke confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'confirm: Required', adding a claim that directly conflicts with the schema's 'default: false' and the zero required parameters. It does not explain what confirm should be set to, what it means, or why it is needed.

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 ('Kill') and the resource ('a running CustomBuild job'), making the tool's intent unambiguous. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like cb_run, cb_updates, and cb_state, where 'kill' is unique to this operation.

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 the use case: when a CustomBuild job is running and needs to be terminated. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as cb_run or cb_actions.

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