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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the side effect that screen mirroring keeps running - i.e. what is NOT torn down - and by scoping the blast radius to the team's screens.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The destructive action leads, and the non-obvious side effect about mirroring follows 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 zero-param, annotation-rich, no-output-schema tool the description covers the essentials: the breadth of the destruction and one key exception. It could optionally note whether this is a team-wide reset affecting every screen or whether it is scoped to a session, but that is a minor gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters with 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter claims are made because none exist.

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 ('End') plus the resources affected ('all scenes and all pushed content on the team's screens'), which is concrete enough to act on. The 'all' scope implicitly separates it from release_scene and release_screen, but the contrast is never made explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'all' suggests a team-wide reset as opposed to the per-scene/per-screen siblings, but the description never states when to prefer this over calling the singular tools.

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