kill_session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, yet the description adds substantial context beyond them: the kill is irreversible with no undo offered, the session's user/host/query is captured for the audit trail, and it refuses this tool's own session id (even under dry_run). This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a high-risk write.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and risk tag, then behavior, then a structured Args block. Slightly redundant — 'No safe inverse' and 'a kill cannot be undone, so no undo is offered' restate the same point — but overall efficient.

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 3-param destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, audit capture, self-session refusal, and the dry_run preview path. It does not describe the response/error shape, but annotations and the absence of an output schema make that 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents all three parameters: session_id (with its source, list_sessions), dry_run (preview semantics), and target (config name, omit for default). Coverage is complete though the per-parameter notes are terse.

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 and resource — 'Terminate a session (KILL CONNECTION)' — which clearly separates it from kill_query by resource type. It does not name any sibling explicitly, but the verb+resource is unambiguous. Strong but short of the explicit sibling differentiation that earns a 5.

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?

Implied usage is present: the session_id comes 'from list_sessions' and dry_run=True is offered as a preview path. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use kill_session versus kill_query or other siblings, so the alternative-selection question is left to inference.

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