Delete an agent session by ID to remove it from memory and disk. Stop active runs first to avoid errors.
Delete a Freebuff agent session by id — from memory and disk.
Returns error if the id is unknown. The transcript resource for a deleted session disappears; active runs must be cancelled (freebuff_stop) before deleting their session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | Id of the session to delete (see freebuff_sessions). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It fully discloses destructive effects: deletion from memory and disk, disappearance of the transcript resource, error behavior for unknown ids, and the precondition that active runs must be stopped first. This is exemplary for a destructive tool without annotation support.
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 concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds necessary information: the scope of deletion, the error case, the side effect on transcripts, and the required precondition. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is deleted, from where, what error to expect, what happens to related resources, and how to safely prepare a session for deletion. No important context is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter session_id is already described as 'Id of the session to delete (see freebuff_sessions).' The tool description mostly reiterates the id-based deletion without adding substantial new semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a Freebuff agent session by id — from memory and disk.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like freebuff_stop, freebuff_sessions, freebuff_run, and freebuff_status, which handle different operations. The scope and effect are unambiguous.
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 explicitly states when the tool should not be used by saying active runs must be cancelled with freebuff_stop before deleting their session. It also warns that deleting an unknown id returns an error, giving the agent the context needed to call the right tool at the right time.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.