remote_session_cleanup_idle

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is known. The description adds the useful semantic that only *named* sessions are candidates and only those past the idle cutoff, but it never says what the sessions or their pending work lose, whether active-but-idle sessions are skipped, or whether partial failure is possible — meaningful gaps for a destructive bulk operation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately qualified by the selection criterion; no filler. Its only weakness is that the brevity leaves behavioral gaps rather than any padding or awkward ordering.

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 annotations cover the destructive profile. Still, for a non-idempotent bulk teardown of sessions, the definition says nothing about scope limits, side effects on running work, or how the eligible-session set is determined — a few more clauses would make it safely callable.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the load: 'idle for at least the requested number of seconds' gives the unit and the inclusive-threshold semantics, which the schema alone does not. It omits the 3600-second default and the fact the parameter is optional, so an agent cannot tell from prose what happens when it is omitted.

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 plus resource plus the qualifying condition: close named sessions that have been idle for at least N seconds. That clearly separates it from remote_session_close (unconditional close) and remote_session_close_all, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 idle threshold implies when to reach for this tool (periodic housekeeping) versus a targeted close, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no mention of remote_session_close / remote_session_close_all as alternatives. The agent must infer the routing.

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