Kill a terminal's program

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the escalation sequence (hangup, then terminate, then kill), which is meaningful behavioral detail. However, it never says the operation is destructive/irreversible, what happens if the terminal is already gone, or what is returned, leaving key traits unstated.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the safety caution.

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 this is nearly sufficient, but the crowded sibling set (herdr_interrupt, herdr_rm, herdr_send) makes the absence of explicit routing between them a real gap. The lack of any destructive/irreversibility statement is also notable given no annotations.

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% and the single 'terminal' parameter already documents its accepted forms (`t7`, a name, or `machine/t7`). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and object: it ends the program in a terminal, and names the escalation mechanism. Combined with the title it is unambiguous what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like herdr_interrupt or herdr_rm.

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?

'Only clean up terminals you started' is a real guardrail about when to use it, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over herdr_interrupt (soft signal) or herdr_rm (remove terminal). The alternative-selection guidance an agent needs is implied rather than stated.

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