lift_limit

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description contributes a genuinely useful scope nuance: rule-based limits are preserved because 'the rule is the user's.' However, it discloses nothing about permissions required, whether the change takes effect immediately, or what the process experiences, and the force parameter's promise of 'the risk this tool described' points at risk content that the description never actually supplies.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, with zero wasted editorializing. The second sentence earns its place by delivering the rule carve-out, though the first sentence's doubled 'limit' construction makes it harder to parse than it needs to be.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the core semantics and the key rule caveat. The notable omission is any explanation of the risk that the force parameter explicitly refers back to, which leaves an agent unable to decide when force=true is warranted.

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%, so the schema already documents both pid and force; baseline 3 applies. The description adds the conceptual distinction between manually applied limits and rule-based ones, but says nothing about the force flag's semantics, leaving the dangling reference to an undescribed risk entirely to the schema.

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 specific verb ('takes away') and resource ('CPU and memory limit'), and explicitly names limit_process as the operation being reversed, which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like set_priority or set_affinity. The phrasing 'the CPU and memory limit limit_process (or the user, by hand) put on a process' is slightly garbled but the intent is recoverable.

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?

Usage is only implied through the inverse relationship with limit_process: use this to undo a limit that was applied. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, and no guidance on how it interacts with siblings such as end_process, suspend_process, or set_efficiency_mode.

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