Kill persistent process

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the scope constraint (only Raccoon-started sessions) and the RACCOON_ENABLE_SHELL=1 prerequisite, but says nothing about what state is lost on termination or what an error vs success looks like.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with zero filler. The prerequisite is placed after the action, which is the correct priority order.

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 destructive, three-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is thin: it never documents the parameters or their interaction, and gives no routing guidance among the near-identical kill/terminate siblings. The annotations carry the destructive signal, but the description still leaves key invocation details missing.

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 0% across three parameters (sessionId, deviceId, deviceName), and the description compensates almost nothing - only the word 'session' loosely maps to sessionId. It never explains what deviceId/deviceName do or whether they are alternatives to sessionId, so the parameter gap is largely unaddressed.

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 ('Terminate') and resource ('process session started by Raccoon'), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as 'kill_process' or 'force_terminate', leaving the agent unable to distinguish this tool from those without opening the schemas.

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?

Provides a real precondition ('Requires RACCOON_ENABLE_SHELL=1'), which implies context for when the tool is usable. But it offers no guidance on when to choose this over the very similarly named 'kill_process' or 'force_terminate', nor any when-not guidance, so selection between siblings is left to inference.

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