ssh_task_kill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether termination is irreversible, whether the task record is removed or merely signaled, or what SIGKILL does versus SIGTERM beyond the schema's enum; 'terminate or signal' leaves the lifecycle effect ambiguous.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and the required identifier. Nothing in it is redundant or padded.

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 lifecycle operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits irreversibility, the fate of the task after signaling, and whether target is needed only for cross-host tasks. The schema covers parameters but the description does not compensate for the missing safety profile.

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 100%, including signal default (SIGTERM), port default (22), and target fallback behavior, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema documents, which is the baseline case.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Terminate or signal') plus resource ('running background task') and an identifying key ('by taskId'). This is implicitly distinct from siblings like ssh_task_poll (status) and ssh_exec_background (creation), though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus ssh_task_poll or how to reap the result, and no mention that the task must have been started by ssh_exec_background. The only contextual hint (target omitted → default profile 'homelab') lives in the schema, not the description.

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