end_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the destructive and irreversible nature ('DELETE', 'no recovery afterwards'), which is the key behavioral trait for a tool like this. The mention of 'clearing this bridge's registry' adds useful context about what gets modified server-side.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, followed by critical usage context and a direct alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 1-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential context: action, timing, irreversibility, and alternative. It does not mention return values or error behavior, but with no output schema and a straightforward operation, these omissions are not critical.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not mention the session_id parameter or explain how to identify the delegation session. The parameter is self-explanatory from its name and schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond the input schema.

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 tool's action: 'End and DELETE a delegation session on the server, clearing this bridge's registry for it.' It uses specific verb-resource language and distinguishes itself from the sibling abort_task by explicitly noting the difference in recovery.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it once the work is accepted.' It also names an alternative for a different scenario: 'to stop the work but keep the history, use abort_task instead.' This makes the appropriate context unmistakable.

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