dsh_takeover

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that the tool is destructive (kills a process), that killing a holder mid-turn interrupts that turn and marks the log as interrupted while leaving the conversation intact, and that unidentified/GUI holders are never killed. The safety boundary of force=true is also spelled out, which is exactly the kind of context annotations would otherwise supply.

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 numbered case structure (①②③④) is genuinely functional and every clause carries decision-relevant information. It is dense and the long parenthetical in the opening sentence delays the concrete action slightly, so it is not maximally front-loaded, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the mechanism (kernel semaphore, no revoke API), the failure modes (orphan vs. foreign instance vs. unknown holder), the side effects (interrupted turn, intact conversation), and the user-recovery path. An agent has everything needed to invoke it or correctly abstain.

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 coverage is 100% and both params are already documented, hitting the baseline 3, but the description adds real behavioral meaning for force: it applies only to case ③ (another live dsh-any-agent instance) and has no effect on GUI/unknown holders because those are never killed. conversation_id gains nothing beyond the schema, keeping this below a 5.

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 first sentence states a specific action on a specific resource: seize the conversation's write lock, explaining that the lock is a cross-process kernel semaphore and that the only takeover mechanism is killing the holder process. It explicitly contrasts itself with the ordinary 'resume' path (case ①), so an agent can tell it is an escalation tool rather than the normal way to attach to a session.

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?

It enumerates four exhaustive situations with explicit decisions: free lock → do nothing and resume; orphaned child of this service → kill and take over; another live dsh-any-agent instance → refuse unless force=true; unidentified holder (likely the user's own DSH GUI) → never kill, report and ask the user to close it. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the only override are all stated.

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