limit_process

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

Well beyond the annotations: it discloses the job-object enforcement model, that exceeding the memory cap makes allocation requests fail and typically crashes the program, the lifetime of the limit, and that protected processes are rejected. That is substantial added context on top of readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false / idempotentHint=true — the near-crash side effect in particular is not implied by the annotations.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the action, and no filler sentences. A couple of clauses ('and most programs then stop with an error') could be tightened, but each carries information about consequences.

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 mutating, no-output-schema tool this covers the essentials: scope, duration, undo path, side effects, and refusal cases. The remaining gap is the unexplained `force` parameter and any hint about what the call reports back, which is minor since no output schema exists.

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 coverage is 50% (memory_gb and cpu_percent are documented; pid and force are not). The description does add real meaning the schema lacks — that limits propagate to processes started later — but it never explains what `force` changes, which is exactly the undocumented parameter an agent most needs guidance on.

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 and resource — holds a process (and its future children) to a CPU share and private-memory amount — and pins down the mechanism ('Windows job objects: a cap the scheduler keeps, whatever the priority'). That phrasing implicitly separates it from priority-tuning siblings like set_priority and set_efficiency_mode.

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?

Gives clear operational context: the limit persists until the process exits or the app quits, and lift_limit removes it. It also names the cases where the tool will refuse to act (core processes, anti-cheat programs). It stops short of an explicit 'use this rather than set_priority when...' routing statement.

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