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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes beyond them by spelling out the consequences: the place/turn ends, viewers and the browser are disconnected, and state is forgotten. That is genuine impact disclosure for an irreversible action, though it says nothing about the agent_token authorization needed to perform it.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and then enumerates the effects. Nothing is wasted and the ordering is optimal.

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-output tool the description covers the consequences well, but with 0% schema coverage on two parameters and no hint about authorization or default session targeting, an agent still lacks the information needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both 'session' and 'agent_token' — and it does not mention either. An agent cannot tell from the description whether omitting them closes the current session or which session is targeted.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('End the session now') and distinguishes it implicitly from open_session/session_status by framing it as the terminal action. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the action is unmistakable.

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?

'End the session now, as when it expires' implies the trigger (deliberate early termination equivalent to natural expiry), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. staying in the session, and no mention of queue_leave or other cleanup siblings that an agent might confuse with closing the session.

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