Close web debug session

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

Annotations establish destructive, non-read-only, idempotent, and closed-world behavior. The description adds a useful behavioral trait by stating that browser resources owned by the session will be released. It does not explain the artifactPolicy delete/retain consequence, but the destructive hint already signals the risk.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. The resource-release consequence is folded in economically.

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 close action, the core behavior is clear, and the output schema plus annotations cover returns and safety. However, the description does not clarify artifactPolicy or what 'selected session' means relative to sessionId, so it is only adequate, not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. It never names sessionId or artifactPolicy, and 'selected session' only loosely maps to the required sessionId. The meaning of artifactPolicy's retain/delete values is left entirely to the agent.

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 action ('Close'), resource ('session'), and consequence ('release any browser resources owned by it'), making the purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like web_session_start and web_session_status.

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 implies this is the tool to use when a debug session should be closed, but it offers no explicit when/when-not guidance, alternatives, prerequisites, or advice about artifactPolicy. Usage context is left to inference.

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