debug_kill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive effect of killing the process and the session-state change of closing the debug session. It does not mention reversibility, but 'kill' inherently signals non-reversible termination.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both the primary action and the secondary effect are communicated efficiently.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the target, and the resulting session state. It could optionally point to debug_detach as a non-destructive alternative, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 only parameter, session_id, is documented in the schema with a clear description referencing debug_launch and debug_attach, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline applies because the schema already handles it.

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 states a specific verb ('Kill') and resource ('the debugged process'), then adds the session-closing outcome. This clearly distinguishes it from related debug lifecycle tools like debug_detach and debug_continue.

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 implies this is the termination action for an active debug session, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus debug_detach or debug_remove_breakpoint. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implied by the semantics.

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