delete_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the cascade (tasks removed, running tasks cancelled on peers), which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before calling a destructive tool. It stops short of stating irreversibility explicitly or noting permission/auth requirements.

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 tight sentence with the outcome front-loaded after the trigger phrase. Every clause earns its place by conveying a distinct cascade effect.

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 no explanation, and the cascade behavior is covered. But for a destructive, unannotated tool, the definition says nothing about irreversibility, failure modes (e.g., session already ended), or permissions — meaningful gaps remain.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions session_id or what a valid identifier looks like. It does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to infer the parameter's meaning entirely from its name.

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 ('removes a session') plus the cascading effects on tasks and peer-running tasks. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with cancel_task/start_session, but the action is unambiguous and distinct within the sibling list.

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?

'Done with a session' implies the trigger condition (session no longer needed), which is a reasonable usage hint. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., cancel_task for individual tasks), and no prerequisites stated.

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