Mark a debugging session resolved or abandoned

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action (closes out a session) and the two possible statuses, which implies a state change. However, it does not specify whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any permission requirements. Some context is provided, but not enough for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds a useful cross-tool tip. No wasted words and every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a simple close-out action, and the description provides when to use it and a related recommended step (knowledge_base_export). However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent is left to infer what the response looks like. Given the low complexity, the description is mostly complete, but a note about the response or side effects would elevate it further.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only resolutionSummary has a description). The description does not add meaning to sessionId or status beyond the schema's enum and default. It implicitly connects resolutionSummary to the root cause/fix but lacks specifics about required format or optionality.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Closes out' with the resource 'debugging session' and clearly distinguishes the two terminal states (resolved or abandoned). This differentiates it from sibling tools like debug_session_create, debug_session_get, and debug_session_list, which handle lifecycle and retrieval.

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 states when to use this tool: after the root cause is found and fixed, or when the investigation is abandoned. It also provides an alternative action ('Call knowledge_base_export first') with a clear rationale, giving the agent actionable guidance for sequencing.

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