mcs_kill_instance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly warns about potential data loss ('可能丢失未保存数据') and indicates the operation is a direct process kill, which is destructive. It also frames the tool as a last resort. While it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or post-kill state, the key risk is disclosed, making this a solid score.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences front-load the purpose and risk, followed by a separate args note. Every sentence adds value, and the key behavioral warning appears early, making it easy for an agent 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 has only one parameter, the description covers the core usage and risk. An output schema exists (though not shown), so return-value details are not required. The tool's edge-case nature and the mention of when to use it make it sufficiently complete, though it does not address post-kill behavior or whether the instance can be restarted, which would be nice to have.

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 input schema only provides a string type and required flag, with zero description coverage. The description adds meaning by explaining that the parameter accepts either a server instance name or UUID and provides examples like '生存服' and 'SMP'. This compensates well for the schema gap, though it could further clarify how UUIDs are formatted or how names are resolved.

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 force-stops a Minecraft server instance via direct process kill, explicitly differentiating from the normal stop (mcs_stop_instance). It provides concrete example user requests, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 states when to use it: '仅建议在正常停止无效时使用' (only recommended when normal stop is ineffective). This gives a clear condition for use and implies it should not be the first choice. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it beyond that condition, so it is slightly short of perfect guidance.

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