kill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (cancel/stop) and a permission restriction, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, or behavior when the target does not exist. This is a destructive operation, so more transparency is warranted.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and includes a relevant caveat. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

The description is sparse for a destructive tool. It does not explain return values (no output schema), error conditions, or what happens to dependent jobs/sessions. The restriction on managed callers is stated but the behavior for unmanaged callers is left ambiguous. Given the one-parameter signature and absence of annotations, more context is needed.

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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the parameter. However, 'agent_id' is self-explanatory in the context of killing an agent, and the tool name and description imply its purpose. It is a single, simple parameter, so the minimal guidance is acceptable but not compensatory.

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 the tool cancels an active job and stops a session, with a specific verb and resource. It also adds a restriction about who may call it, distinguishing it from monitoring tools like status or wait.

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 mentions a constraint for managed callers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There is no guidance on checking status before killing or using other tools for related actions.

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