kill_op

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 danger profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that — nothing about whether partial writes survive, what happens if the op finished already, or what a successful response contains. Against an already-strong annotation set, this is the expected minimum, not a gap that sinks it.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and the id source inline. Nothing wasted, nothing 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?

Safety is covered by annotations and there is no output schema to explain, but a destructive tool with an undocumented second parameter and no statement of effect (abort semantics, confirmation needs) leaves an agent guessing on the connection dimension. Adequate, not complete.

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%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It explains only the required opid (its source in current_ops) and never mentions the optional 'connection' parameter, leaving it entirely undocumented in both schema and description — a real ambiguity in a toolset with multiple connections (list_connections, add_connection are siblings).

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 (kill) and resource (a running operation) plus the identifying key (opid), which cleanly separates it from every sibling in the list — none of the others terminate work in flight. Naming the source of the id, 'from current_ops', also anchors it to a known sibling.

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 parenthetical '(from current_ops)' gives an explicit prerequisite workflow: call current_ops first to obtain the opid. It does not state when-not to use it (e.g. after the op already completed, or on idle ops), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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