process_kill

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful constraint — the tool only kills processes this server spawned — but says nothing about graceful vs. forced termination, error behavior for unknown/stale ids, or whether descendants are affected.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action verb and carrying the scoping constraint. Nothing to trim.

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 one-shot tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action and the eligibility rule, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. It still leaves failure modes and the meaning of the id parameter undocumented, which an agent would want before calling it on an uncertain handle.

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 50%: the nested `agent` object is documented in the schema, but `id` has no description anywhere. The description's "a process previously started by this MCP server" hints that id is a handle from process_start, but adds no format, origin, or validity detail beyond that hint.

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?

Specific verb ("Stop") plus resource ("a process") and a scoping qualifier ("previously started by this MCP server") that separates it from process_start and process_list. It stops short of naming the sibling it pairs with, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 scope clause implies the eligibility condition (only processes this server started), which is real routing guidance. However there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no mention of process_list/process_output for identifying a target, and no guidance on already-exited or foreign processes.

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