Close session

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context by warning that 'Unsaved changes in that session are lost.' It also clarifies the side effect of releasing resources, which goes beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 two short sentences, front-loading the action and then adding the critical data-loss warning. Every word contributes value, with no repetition of the title or schema.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the target resource, the resource-release effect, and the key risk of unsaved data loss. It does not describe error behavior or return value, but the simplicity of the operation and the presence of annotations make this a minor gap.

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?

The schema fully documents session_id as a required string 'returned by tab_open,' so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond reinforcing that the session is owned by this server. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Close one session owned by this server and release its resources.' This clearly distinguishes tab_close from sibling tools like tab_open, tab_state, and tab_act. The object of the operation is 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 context is implied rather than explicit: closing a server-owned session and releasing resources suggests this tool is for cleanup/termination. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusion cases, leaving some inference to the agent.

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