End session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is structured. The description adds useful specificity by stating that the sandbox is destroyed and resources are freed, which goes beyond the generic destructive flag. It still does not explain error behavior, whether repeated calls fail, or what happens to associated tasks.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase contributes to the meaning: destroy action, sandbox target, and resource release.

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 lifecycle tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the core effect adequately. The main remaining gaps are where session_id comes from and any precondition around active tasks, but these are relatively minor for this tool's complexity.

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% for the single required session_id parameter, so the description must compensate but does not. 'A session's sandbox' only indirectly implies that session_id identifies the target session; no format, source, or validity constraints are provided.

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, 'Destroy,' and names the exact resource affected: a session's sandbox and its resources. It is clearly distinct from lifecycle siblings such as start_session and run_in_sandbox.

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 by the lifecycle framing: an agent can infer this should be called when a session is no longer needed. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus leaving a session running, nor does it state preconditions such as whether active tasks must be stopped first.

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