jms_exit_terminal_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the exit action and verification step, which implies mutation (state change) of the session. However, it does not state whether the operation is destructive or reversible, what happens if verification fails, or if any rate limits or auth constraints apply. The description adds some value beyond the schema but leaves significant gaps.

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 a single concise sentence that captures the core action. It is front-loaded with the primary operation and includes the verification step. While not verbose, it could be more efficient by also hinting at the parameters. However, for its brevity, it communicates the essential purpose without waste.

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 complexity (3 parameters, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains what the tool does and mentions verification, but fails to cover parameter semantics, preconditions, or behavior on failure. The output schema may explain return values, but the description still lacks key usage and behavioral details. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions 'exit one MCP-managed user shell' and 'verification,' which gives context for the session_handle parameter (identifies the shell), but does not explicitly describe the timeout parameters or their roles. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description partially compensates but could do more to explain the purpose of total_timeout_seconds and settle_timeout_seconds.

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 action: 'Exit one MCP-managed user shell and verify restoration of the previous user.' This includes a specific verb (exit), resource (MCP-managed user shell), and an additional verification step. It distinguishes itself from similar tools by mentioning 'exit' and 'restoration of previous user,' which differentiates it from other terminal operations like switch, interrupt, or close.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., a session must be switched to a different user first), when to prefer this over close or interrupt, or what happens if the tool is called without a switched user. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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