close_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key destructive trait (the artifact directory, renders and DRC output, are deleted), which is genuinely useful. However it omits irreversibility, whether the session id becomes invalid, and behavior when the session is unknown or already closed.

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 plus an Args block, with the destructive side effect front-loaded right after the verb. No filler, nothing repeated for padding.

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. Still, this is a destructive, unannotated, one-shot operation and the description leaves open whether closing is reversible, idempotent, or whether the session id remains usable — gaps that matter for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining the provenance of `session_id` ('Session returned by `open_layout`'), which tells the agent where a valid value comes from rather than merely restating the type.

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+resource ('Close a session') and immediately qualifies it with the side effect ('delete its artifact directory (renders, DRC output)'), which is more than a tautology. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling `open_layout`, though that differentiation is only implied by the parameter note rather than stated.

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?

The description never says when to call this versus leaving a session open, nor does it warn that closing is presumably terminal for that session. Usage is only inferable from the verb itself; no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are named.

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