jms_close_sftp_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the primary action (closing a session) and a side effect (cleaning up the connection token), making the destructive nature explicit. It could add idempotency or error behavior, but the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the description contributes value.

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's simple nature and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the main action. It could benefit from noting that session_handle comes from jms_acquire_sftp_session, but that is more of a parameter semantic concern; overall completeness is strong.

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 has one parameter (session_handle) with no description and 0% schema coverage. The description does not mention the parameter at all, failing to explain that it is likely the handle returned from jms_acquire_sftp_session or how it should be formatted.

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 'Close' and clearly identifies the resource as a managed KoKo SFTP session, plus the additional cleanup of its connection token. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like jms_acquire_sftp_session or jms_list_sftp_sessions.

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 usage after acquiring an SFTP session, but does not explicitly state when to use it or mention alternatives like jms_close_terminal_session. It provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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