mz_job_kill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that child processes are killed (taskkill /T) and that force defaults to true, but it does not warn about irreversibility, permissions, or side effects on other jobs. For a destructive operation, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise: a one-sentence purpose statement followed a short parameter list. No filler or repetition. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence is informative. It earns its place entirely.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin on context. It omits what happens after a successful kill, error handling, prerequisites (e.g., the job must exist or be running), and how to obtain job_id. It also doesn't reference siblings like mz_jobs for listing jobs, leaving agents to infer basic operational details.

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. The 'job_id' explanation ('作业 id') merely restates the schema title, adding no meaning. 'force' does add meaning (whether to force-terminate, default True), but this is minimal and does not fully substitute for the missing schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb and resource: '终止一个作业' (terminate a job) with the extra detail that it kills child processes using taskkill /T. This distinguishes it from siblings like mz_job_status and mz_job_log, so an agent can select it without opening schemas.

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 implied by the action itself—'terminate a job'—but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the tool for stopping jobs rather than checking status or logs, which is clear from the verb but not spelled out.

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