femm_session_close

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key destructive trait: unsaved work is lost. That is exactly the kind of consequence an agent needs before invoking. It stops short of saying whether the session is removed from the session list or whether the closed engine can be reopened.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Quit the FEMM engine') and parenthesizes the critical warning. Nothing is wasted and the destructive caveat is impossible to miss.

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?

With no output schema and a trivial single-parameter input, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the target session, the fact that it is a teardown, and the required prior save. Remaining gaps (post-close session state, behavior on unknown name) are minor for a tool of this 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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter has no description in the schema, so the description must compensate. It references `name` as the session identifier, which conveys intent, but omits the default value 'main' and what happens if the name does not match an open session. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Quit the FEMM engine of session `name`', which tells the agent this terminates an engine tied to a named session rather than a document. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby sibling femm_close_document, so an agent must infer the session-vs-document boundary.

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?

Gives one explicit precondition ('call femm_save first') that makes safe usage actionable. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this versus femm_close_document or femm_session_list, and no note on what happens if the session name is invalid.

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