Set a running process's priority class by PID to control CPU scheduling, from idle to realtime. Use realtime cautiously, as it can starve other system activity.
Sets a process' priority class: idle, below_normal, normal, above_normal, high or realtime (realtime can starve the rest of the system).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | ||
| force | No | ||
| priority | Yes | idle, below_normal, normal, above_normal, high or realtime. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description is only asked to add context. The starvation warning for realtime is a genuinely useful side-effect disclosure that a bare schema would not convey, though it says nothing about required privileges or what the undocumented force flag changes.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence: the verb and resource come first, the valid values follow, and the most important caveat closes it. No filler and the safety warning is placed where it will be read before invocation.
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 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is changed and the main risk, but leaves force, privilege requirements, and the effect on other processes undocumented. Given the low schema description coverage, the agent still lacks enough information to invoke this confidently in edge cases.
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 only 33%: the priority string is already documented in the schema, and the description merely repeats those values. The pid and force parameters are unexplained in both places, and force being a boolean defaulting to false on a mutation tool leaves the agent guessing what it overrides and when 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?
Names the operation (set) and the resource (a process' priority class) and enumerates the accepted values, so the agent can tell it apart from set_affinity, set_efficiency_mode, or limit_process. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the purpose itself is 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no prerequisite or permission information. The parenthetical warning that realtime can starve the rest of the system is the only implied guidance, warning against one extreme value rather than routing the agent to an alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.