pty_stop

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'remove' nuance (the session is deleted, not just paused), which is meaningful beyond 'stop', but it omits what happens to running processes, whether an invalid id errors, or whether it blocks.

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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no padding. Brevity is appropriate, though it contributes nothing to filling the semantic gaps.

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 tool with no output schema and an entirely undocumented parameter, the description should explain the identifier source and the consequences of removal. It leaves both to inference, which is insufficient even with annotations carrying the safety signal.

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 0% for the single required 'id' parameter. The description never states that this is a PTY session identifier obtained from pty_list/pty_start or what format it takes, so nothing compensates for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Stop and remove an interactive PTY session.' An agent can distinguish it from pty_start/pty_read/pty_write by the verb, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with close siblings like process_stop or kill_process.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer that this is the cleanup counterpart to pty_start and is distinct from process_stop on its own.

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