mysql_kill_process

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action is to kill a connection/query, which implies destructiveness, but does not disclose severity, irreversibility, permission requirements, or whether it terminates the entire connection or just the query. This ambiguity is significant for a potentially disruptive operation.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the core action and target. It contains no filler or redundant wording, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks important contextual information for a destructive operation: no safety warning, no mention of obtaining the process ID via a sibling tool, and no clarification on the scope (connection vs. query). This leaves gaps for an agent unfamiliar with MySQL process management.

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 the schema already describing process_id as 'Process ID to kill (from SHOW PROCESSLIST)' and alias as optional. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for good schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Kill') and clearly identifies the resource ('MySQL connection/query by process ID'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like mysql_show_processlist and mysql_list_connections by communicating the destructive action.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like calling mysql_show_processlist to obtain the process ID, nor does it warn against killing critical processes. Usage context is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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