agent-link-mcp

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

Annotations indicate 'destructiveHint: true' and 'readOnlyHint: false', which already signal a non-read-only, destructive operation. The description adds value by specifying that it 'clean[s] up its resources', providing behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict annotations, as 'terminate' aligns with destructive and non-read-only hints.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Terminate an active agent session') and adds necessary context ('clean up its resources') without any wasted words. Every part earns its place by clarifying the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with one parameter) and the presence of annotations covering safety, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and adds behavioral context. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values (e.g., success confirmation), leaving a minor gap.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'agentId' documented as 'Session ID of the agent to kill'. The description does not add further parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without extra semantic value.

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 specific action ('Terminate') and target ('an active agent session') with additional context ('clean up its resources'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_status', 'list_agents', or 'spawn_agent' by focusing on session termination rather than querying or creating agents.

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 implies usage when an agent session needs to be ended, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_status' to check if an agent is active first) or provide exclusions. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or prerequisites.

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