terminate_sessionEnd a browser session and free its resources. The session and any running task cannot be resumed afterwards.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | Session ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | The control action that was applied | |
| message | Yes | ||
| success | Yes | ||
| sessionId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context by stating the session and any running task cannot be resumed, and that resources are freed. This goes beyond the structured metadata and helps the agent understand the full impact of the action.
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 front-loaded, using two sentences to state the action and its consequence. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail or repetition of the title.
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?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description covers the essential information: what it does and a critical behavioral caveat. It does not explain return values (unnecessary given the output schema) or prerequisites, but for this complexity level, it is sufficiently complete.
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 fully describes the only parameter (sessionId) with 100% coverage, so the description need not add more. The description does not elaborate on the parameter, but the schema is already clear, making the baseline 3 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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('End a browser session') and resource, and adds the key detail that it frees resources. It distinguishes itself from similar sibling tools like pause_session_task or stop_session_task by emphasizing the finality and non-resumability of the 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?
The description implies when to use the tool (to end a session permanently) and even notes that the session cannot be resumed, which is a clear contextual hint. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving some ambiguity compared to sibling tools that might pause or stop tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: browser_task vs create_session differentiate one-off vs persistent sessions, trigger_workflow is explicitly separated from generic task execution, and the pause/resume/stop/terminate actions are scoped to either agents or session tasks. There is no overlap where an agent could mis-select between tools.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, list_, get_, pause_, resume_, stop_, terminate_, trigger_, update_, send_). Two tools deviate: browser_task (noun_verb) and guardrail_response (noun), but these are minor and still readable within the overall convention.
21 tools is on the higher end but justified by the domain covering three distinct resource types (sessions, workflows, agents) plus environments and status/guardrail handling. It is slightly heavy but each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy.
Core lifecycle operations are covered for sessions (create, list, terminate, send task, pause/resume/stop task) and workflows (create, get, list, update, trigger). However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for workflows or agents (only pause/resume for agents, and no delete_workflow), and no dedicated get_agent detail endpoint. These omissions could force agents to work around missing functionality.