Kill Process

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description explicitly warns 'May cause data loss!'. This adds valuable context beyond the annotation, reinforcing the destructive nature. No contradictions with annotations.

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 with four short points, each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the main action and provides essential guidance without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema, adequate annotations), the description covers all needed information: what it does, how to use it, and a critical warning. No gaps identified.

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?

All three parameters are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., clarifying 'name' as 'Process name'), but the sufficient schema coverage justifies a score above 3.

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 'Terminates a process by PID or name', specifying the verb (terminates) and resource (process), with clear distinction from siblings like `fc_start_process` and `fc_list_processes`.

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 clear arguments and a warning about data loss, implying careful usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like `fc_safe_delete` or provide exclusions.

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