process_kill

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses destructive behavior: 'force-killed without confirmation,' 'killed processes cannot be recovered,' and 'unsaved data will be lost.' It also clarifies that name targeting kills ALL instances, which is critical operational context.

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?

The description is compact: three sentences front-loaded with the action, followed by targeted use cases and a warning. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes essential information.

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 annotations or output schema, the description covers the action, targeting options, consequences, and use cases. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and assess risks.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions: pid is described as safer since it kills one process, and name kills all instances. The tool description repeats these points but doesn't add new parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description clearly states 'Force-terminate a running process on this Windows PC' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes between targeting by name (kills all instances) and by PID (kills specific process), which also differentiates it from sibling tools like process_list.

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 description provides explicit use cases: 'stop hung/frozen applications, close unwanted programs, or free up blocked resources.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but no direct sibling tool competes with this kill functionality, so the guidance is clear enough.

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