db_kill_process

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It conveys a destructive action but does not mention irreversibility, impact on active queries or connections, permissions required, or why confirmation is necessary. The claim that 'confirm: Required' conflicts with the schema, which marks it optional, further reduces 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 opening sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the subsequent Args block does not earn its place. 'process_id: Process id' is a tautology, and 'confirm: Required' is inaccurate, so the brevity comes at the cost of useful content.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves gaps around how the process ID is obtained, what confirmation actually does, and what the consequences of the kill are. For a destructive tool with no annotations, a one-line command plus a misleading argument list is not enough for confident invocation.

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 needed to define the parameters, but it only restates the parameter name: 'process_id: Process id.' The confirm note says 'Required,' which contradicts the schema's default false and non-required status. This adds no useful meaning and is actively misleading.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Kill a database process.' This immediately differentiates it from sibling tools like db_processes (list) and db_info (get), making the operation recognizable without needing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites like obtaining a process ID from db_processes. The description only lists arguments and does not explain the context in which killing a database process is appropriate.

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