Stop background job

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' is consistent with the description's 'Force-stop' and 'child process tree' language. The description adds the nuance that it kills the entire process tree, which is not implied by annotations alone. However, it does not explicitly state irreversibility or side effects like data loss, though it is strongly implied.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and scope, making it immediately understandable. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core action and scope. It could mention error behavior (e.g., what happens if jobId doesn't exist) but given the simplicity and the sibling context, the current level is adequate.

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 schema only specifies 'jobId' as a UUID. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must compensate. It mentions 'by job ID', which clarifies the parameter's purpose, but it does not explain how to obtain a job ID (e.g., from 'start_job') or valid formats beyond the schema. This is minimal compensation for a single parameter.

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 action ('Force-stop') on a specific resource ('background job') with an additional detail ('child process tree') and identification method ('by job ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start_job' and 'job_status'.

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?

While the description implies when to use the tool (to stop a job), it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., 'use job_status to check first' or 'use exec for non-background tasks'). It relies on inference rather than explicit guidance.

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