session_close

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine value by naming the concrete consequence — all tabs and state are lost — which tells the agent this is irreversible session teardown rather than a reversible close.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the destructive consequence immediately after. 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 single-required-param destructive tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what the structured fields cannot: the scope of loss. It stops short of routing guidance relative to browser_close and session_list, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents sessionId. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or source (e.g. from session_create/session_list), making this the baseline case where structured fields do the work.

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 ('Close a browser session') plus the implementation-level effect ('dispose its browser context'), which makes the target object unambiguous. The sibling browser_close exists, however, and the description never contrasts session-level closing with page-level closing, leaving a small ambiguity an agent must resolve by inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: nothing says to use this when tearing down a whole session versus browser_close for a tab/page, nor that it should precede or follow session_switch. Usage is only weakly implied by the terminal 'state will be lost' phrasing.

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