session_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavioral value: idempotency and the exact repeat-call result ('returns ok and stays closed'). It omits the consequential side effects an agent needs before calling — whether closing invalidates tokens, terminates in-flight messages, or requires workspace ownership — so the disclosure is partial.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the idempotency caveat follows immediately. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 not be explained, and the description covers the key idempotency trait. But with no annotations at all, it should also address the side effects of closing a session and any authorization or scope requirements, which it does not.

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 100%, with session_id documented as 'returned by session_open' and workspace_id documented as a scope guard, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Close a session'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does nothing to distinguish the tool from close cousins in the sibling list such as session_open and session_heartbeat, so an agent must rely on the name alone to route between session lifecycle tools.

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 close a session versus leaving it open, no prerequisites (e.g. must the session be open?), and no mention of the sibling tools that could be alternatives. The only contextual hint is that repeated calls are safe, which is a behavior note rather than usage guidance.

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