Close External GDB Bridge and Session

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces rather than contradicts them by spelling out what is NOT destroyed (no detach, no target kill, no shell restoration claim) — genuinely useful context beyond the annotation booleans. It stops short of describing failure behavior for an unknown or already-closed bridge_id, which is the one remaining disclosure gap.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler. Scope comes first, non-effects second, the alternative route third, with 'Idempotent.' as a one-word close.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a two-param teardown tool the description covers scope, non-effects, idempotency, and the sibling alternative — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 both parameter descriptions are strong (owner distinguished from a generated TCP token; bridge_id explicitly 'not a Session reference'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource pair: closing the external RSP bridge AND its serial Session, with the capitalization making the dual scope unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from debug_bridge_restore, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the selecting condition: 'Use debug_bridge_restore after externally ending RSP if the Session should be preserved.' It also states the negative cases (does not detach, kill a target, or claim shell restoration), leaving nothing to inference.

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