ncloud_serverless_kill_processes

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description builds on them with concrete consequences: application connections are cut, unknown session numbers yield 400 partialFailure with per-index failures, and the confirm=true gate must be set. It also discloses the async nature via '202 Operation'. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose/endpoint, input provenance and impact, error behavior, and the safety gate. The destructive warning is front-loaded, and no sentence is redundant with the schema.

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 4-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input source, impact, error mode, and the confirm gate. The 202 Operation mention covers the response shape adequately despite the lack of an output schema.

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 all four parameters carrying meaningful descriptions (e.g., confirm's 'Must be true to actually execute' and sessionNos' '1-49' bound). The description adds only marginal provenance — sessionNos come from ncloud_serverless_list_processes — which the schema's instanceName description already does for list_instances. 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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Kill DB sessions on an instance' — plus the raw endpoint and expected 202 Operation response. The destructive warning is front-loaded, and referencing ncloud_serverless_list_processes as the source of sessionNos helps distinguish this from the listing tool and other serverless management operations.

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?

Provides clear workflow context: sessionNos come from ncloud_serverless_list_processes, and confirm must be true to execute. It does not explicitly enumerate when to prefer this over sibling destructive tools (e.g., ncloud_serverless_delete_database), but the specificity of 'kill DB sessions' plus the input-provenance note makes selection unambiguous.

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