winops_process_kill

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

Annotations (destructiveHint=true) already signal the danger. The description adds the SIGTERM behavior (graceful), return format, and specific error cases (process not found, access denied). This goes beyond the annotation baseline, though it doesn't mention side effects like child processes or timeouts.

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?

Extremely concise: a single purpose sentence, a compact return format block, a one-line example, and error conditions. No fluff; everything is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers the essential: action, return format, example, and errors. It lacks detail on permission requirements (only implied via access denied) and force termination semantics, but these are minor gaps for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The only parameter 'pid' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds an example call but no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb+resource: 'Terminate a process by PID (SIGTERM)' distinguishes it from sibling process tools (list, info, resources). The action and target are explicit and unambiguous.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use to terminate a process by PID. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but there's no competing kill tool among siblings. The error conditions provide context on when termination may fail. Lacks explicit alternative guidance but is adequate for this singular-purpose tool.

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