remote_session_close

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful detail of what is torn down (the remote shell/runspace), but says nothing about behavior when the named session does not exist or whether partial teardown can occur.

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 sentence with no filler, and the key scope qualifier ('one named session') is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, and annotations cover the destructive nature of the call. What remains missing for a destructive single-target operation is failure behavior (unknown name, already-closed session) and whether the close waits for teardown to complete.

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% for the single 'name' parameter, so the description carries the burden; it does add that the name identifies the session to be closed. However, it gives no format hints (exact vs. prefix match, case sensitivity) for resolving the session name, which is the main ambiguity.

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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Close') and resource ('one named session and its remote shell/runspace'), and the phrase 'one named session' implicitly separates it from the bulk sibling remote_session_close_all. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable 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?

Usage is only implied: close a single identified session, as opposed to close_all or cleanup_idle. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the choice from the word 'one'.

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