Kill a process

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by naming the default SIGTERM and the required prerequisites (admin mode and MACCTL_ALLOW_EXEC=true). It does not contradict any annotation.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core action, and includes the prerequisite in the second sentence. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the rich schema (both parameters documented, enum + default provided), strong annotations around destructiveness, and a clear prerequisite statement, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is that no return/error behavior is described, but with no output schema this is not required.

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%, and both pid and signal are already well-documented in the schema, including the signal enum and default. The description only repeats the default SIGTERM behavior and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific action ('Send a signal ... to a process by pid'), a concrete resource (process), and the default signal. This clearly distinguishes kill_process from siblings like list_processes (read-only), quit_app (app-level quit), and delete_path (filesystem destruction).

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 explicit usage context: the tool targets a pid and requires admin mode plus MACCTL_ALLOW_EXEC=true, and the schema's pid description tells the agent to use list_processes. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives like quit_app for graceful app termination, but the context is clear enough.

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