close_process

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real value beyond them: it says exactly what is destroyed (scan result sets) and discloses concurrency semantics (in-flight calls stop at their next check, handle released after). It stops short of saying what happens with an invalid or already-closed session.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect, and the concurrency caveat earns its place by explaining what the caller will observe. No redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive effect plus concurrent-call behavior. The remaining gap is the undocumented session_id, which an agent must resolve from context elsewhere.

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?

There is one required parameter, session_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it by name or explains where a session_id comes from. It only obliquely references 'the session', leaving the sole parameter undocumented in both places.

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 states a specific verb ('Detach from a process') plus the secondary effect ('drop its scan result sets'), which clearly separates it from open_process and the read-only inspection siblings. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the teardown counterpart to open_process. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives like list_processes or process_info, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g., holding a session).

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