process_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds value by scoping termination to 'only the specified bridge-owned process group' and disclosing the SSH-specific caveat that remote child shutdown needs independent verification. This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a clearer picture of side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds meaningful detail. There is no redundancy or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: scope of termination and SSH nuance. It does not discuss error handling or return values, but since there is no output schema and the tool is straightforward, the description is adequately complete for an agent to call it correctly, especially with annotations covering the destructive nature.

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?

The description does not mention the session_id parameter at all. The schema provides a UUID format and pattern, but the description fails to explain what session_id refers to (e.g., that it identifies the process group to terminate). With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's role from context.

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 the verb 'Terminate' and the specific resource 'bridge-owned process group', making it unambiguous what the tool does. It also adds a distinct SSH nuance, differentiating it from sibling process tools like process_start, process_read, and process_list, which handle other lifecycle actions.

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?

The description provides context that for SSH it stops the connection and remote child shutdown needs independent verification, which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., process_list for listing or process_input for sending input), nor does it give 'when not to use' exclusions. The usage guidance is implied by the verb but not explicit.

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