process_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: stopping kills the entire process tree, not just the parent, which an agent could not infer from the schema or annotations.

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, 14 words, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the process_start linkage and the tree-kill behavior. No filler.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and annotations covering the destructive/idempotency profile, the description supplies the essential extras: the originating tool and the tree-kill scope. Only minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the id is stale or already terminated.

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?

There is a single required parameter 'id' with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source. It implies the id refers to a process previously launched via process_start but does not state whether it is a PID, opaque handle, or whether the id remains valid after the process exits.

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 (background process) and it names the originating sibling tool process_start, which anchors the resource type. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the other termination-flavored siblings such as kill_process, pty_stop, or job_cancel.

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 phrase 'started with process_start' implies the intended lifecycle pairing, but it never states when to prefer this over kill_process or how it differs from pty_stop/job_cancel. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.

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