end_agent_session

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

Behavioral details go well beyond the `destructiveHint: false` annotation: the description explains that the history lock is released, the current view and activity records are kept, running tasks are not canceled, MCP is not disconnected, later calls are not prohibited, and the action is 'Unrecorded.' It also discloses the force behavior and the ownership condition, giving a complete picture of side effects and limitations.

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 tightly packed with information in a logical flow: core action, then clarifications of non-effects, then ownership/force rules, then a pointer to read_project, and a final note on recording. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 1-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It covers the action, side effects, ownership rules, force semantics, how to check ownership, and the unrecorded nature. An agent has all necessary information to correctly invoke the tool and decide whether force is appropriate.

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?

Although the schema already describes the `force` parameter as 'End another connection's session too. Default false.', the description enriches it with context: `force: true` takes over another connection's session (and its lock) when its owner is gone. This explains the intended use case and adds meaning beyond the schema, outweighing the high schema coverage baseline.

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 opens with 'End your work session and release its history lock,' a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's core action. It further distinguishes itself from siblings like begin_agent_session and set_history_lock by focusing on session termination and lock release. The addition of what it does not do (cancel tasks, disconnect MCP, prohibit later calls) removes ambiguity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance by clarifying that only the owning connection may end a session and that `force: true` is for when the owner is gone, pointing to `read_project { view: "session" }` as the way to check ownership. It also implicitly states when not to use it (e.g., if you need to cancel tasks) by listing non-effects. This gives an agent clear decision criteria.

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