ssh_exec_kill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description is honest that this sends signals (a mutation on a running process) and mentions the cleanup behavior. However, it doesn't disclose what the job_id needs to be valid, whether sending SIGTERM defaults gracefully handle cleanup, or what happens to running output. With zero annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary purpose and adds the optional cleanup behavior as a secondary note. It's appropriately terse for a tool that the schema already documents well.

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 tool with full schema coverage, 3 parameters (all documented), no output schema, and no nested objects, the description could be considered sufficient. However, with no annotations describing the destructive potential (sending signals can kill processes), the description could benefit from noting behavioral implications. The tool has moderate complexity and is reasonably covered.

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%, so the schema documents all three parameters (job_id, signal, cleanup) with their meanings and defaults. The description adds the context that job_id comes from ssh_exec background=true (which the schema already states) and notes the optional cleanup behavior. The value added beyond schema is minimal, and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb (send a signal to) and resource (a background job started with ssh_exec background=true). It distinguishes this from siblings since it explicitly refers to ssh_exec background jobs and mentions optional cleanup of the job log directory, which differentiates it from other SSH operational tools.

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 makes it clear this is for background jobs started with 'ssh_exec background=true' — establishing the context for what jobs this applies to. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the prerequisite connection to ssh_exec background jobs is clear and helpful.

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