stop_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses its primary effect and a non-effect (not killing hosts), but doesn't say whether the stop is graceful, whether session data is preserved, or whether the session can later be resumed. Some behavioral context is provided, but important side-effect details are missing.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the clarifying boundary ('Does not kill Desktop/TUI hosts') is placed immediately after.

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 single-parameter imperative tool with no output schema, this covers the action, scope, and an important boundary. It could mention post-stop state or cleanup behavior, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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 schema already documents that session_id accepts an id, title, or 'agent:ref'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 ('Stop') and resource ('session'), scoped to 'magents-supervised spawned or resumed sessions'. It also explicitly says it does not kill Desktop/TUI hosts, which distinguishes this from host-level termination and from sibling tools like get_session or spawn_session.

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?

It gives a clear condition for use: stopping a magents-supervised spawned or resumed session, and a clear when-not signal with 'Does not kill Desktop/TUI hosts'. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the stop operation has no close sibling, so the implied usage context is enough.

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