invariance_kb_session_delete

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

The description aligns with the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false) by explicitly stating 'Delete', so no contradiction. However, it adds no detail beyond the annotations—no mention of irreversibility, cascading effects on messages, or required permissions. Since annotations already convey destructiveness, the description adds minimal value.

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 with no redundant words. It front-loads the core purpose and contains no fluff. For its brevity, it is perfectly structured.

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 delete operation with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. The annotations cover the destructive nature, and the resource type is clear from the name. However, it omits any mention of side effects (e.g., permanent removal, associated data) and does not clarify the id's source. Given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable 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 has only one required parameter 'id' with no description, and the description does not elaborate on it. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it fails to explain what the id refers to or how to obtain it. The parameter is named generically, leaving the agent to infer it is the session ID.

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 ('Delete') and the resource ('KB ask session'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like invariance_kb_session_create or invariance_kb_page_delete. However, it doesn't elaborate on what a KB ask session is, leaving slight ambiguity for agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implicit that deletion is appropriate when a session is no longer needed, but the description does not mention any prerequisites, consequences, or alternative tools (e.g., clearing messages without deleting). No exclusions or context are provided.

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