Stop the game session

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavior: it fails if any pids survive, deliberately keeps the session, retries exactly those pids on the next call, and explains why premature verification causes false refusals. It also clarifies that killed_pids means verified-gone pids, not merely targeted ones.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence mission, then structured into argument explanation, rationale, and failure semantics. Every sentence contributes operational value, and the structure makes the longer content easy to parse.

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 teardown tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers invocation behavior, failure semantics, retry behavior, and consequences for subsequent launches. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly and safely is 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden for the only parameter, settle. It explains the unit, the failure mode when too low on Windows with /F, and when to raise it on a loaded machine, which is fully actionable.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Kill only the processes this session started, and confirm they are gone.' It clearly scopes the operation to session-owned processes siege, and the 'Surgical on purpose' note distinguishes it from a broad tModLoader-wide kill.

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?

It gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: a scoped teardown that avoids killing a developer's own game, and it explains that calling stop again retries surviving pids. It does not name explicit sibling alternatives, but the scope is clear enough that an agent can choose it over destructive broader kills.

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