ssh_job_kill

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that the signal 'reaches the whole process group' and that an already-finished job is 'reported as gone rather than refused,' which aligns with and expands on the idempotent hint. This adds valuable operational context without contradicting 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 concise, using two sentences to cover purpose, side effects, and signal guidance. It front-loads the primary function and avoids redundancy. Slightly more structure (e.g., separators) could help, but it is efficient and well-paced.

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 presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains process-group behavior, idempotent behavior, and signal choices, covering the key operational aspects an agent needs. No critical gaps are evident beyond what the schema and annotations already provide.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra detail for the 'id' parameter (returned by ssh_exec with detach: true, sudo jobs reachable as root) and for 'signal' (KILL only when TERM ignored), going beyond the schema definitions. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Stops a detached job.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'detached job' distinguishes it from general job management tools. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ssh_job_status, the action is unambiguous.

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 guidance on signal selection ('TERM is the default; KILL is for a job that ignored it') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_job_status or ssh_job_output. Usage context is implied by 'detached job' but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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