停止远程后台任务

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds the valuable context that after a waiting period (force_after_seconds) the task is force-terminated, providing meaningful behavioral detail beyond the 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It immediately states the core action and adds the timeout condition concisely.

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 an output schema, return format is covered. The description covers the core cancellation behavior and timeout. It does not mention prerequisites like a running job or the meaning of alias, but given sibling context and annotations, the description is sufficiently complete for a simple destructive action.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only hints at 'force_after_seconds' via the timeout phrase, but does not explain 'alias' or 'job_id' beyond what their names imply.

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 terminates a background task and force-ends it after a timeout. This is specific and distinguishable from siblings like ssh_job_status, ssh_job_list, and ssh_job_cleanup.

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 implies it is used for cancelling a remote background job, and the timeout behavior suggests it can be used when a graceful stop is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as ssh_job_cleanup or state when not to use it.

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