Set the CPU priority of a process by PID, using a nice value from -20 (highest) to 19 (lowest) to control resource allocation.
Set nice priority level (-20 to 19) of a process by PID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pid | Yes | Target Process ID (PID). | |
| priority | No | Nice priority level (-20 highest priority to 19 lowest priority). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates the mutation ('set') but does not mention required privileges, effect on the running process, reversibility, errors, or what happens on failure.
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, efficiently worded sentence with no filler. Every phrase is meaningful and the core action and scope are stated immediately.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with fully documented parametersoreschema, the description is largely sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, the lack of annotations and output schema means some behavioral context, such as permission requirements or return behavior, is missing.
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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, including the priority range and default. The description restates the range and mentions 'by PID', but adds little semantic value beyond the schema.
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 states a specific action ('Set nice priority level'), the exact resource ('process by PID'), and the valid range (-20 to 19). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like process_get_priority and process_kill.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative such as process_get_priority. The intended use is only implied by the description and tool name, with no exclusions or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.