mt_delete_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While '削除します' (deletes) implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects associated data, or what happens on success/failure. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical context like what 'deletion' entails (permanent/soft), error conditions, permissions needed, or what happens to associated backup data. For a tool that permanently removes resources, this level of documentation is inadequate.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'sessionId' clearly documented in the schema as 'セッションID' (session ID). The description doesn't add any additional semantic context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('削除します' - deletes) and the resource ('バックエンドセッション' - backup session), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this deletion operation from other deletion-like operations among sibling tools (like mt_remove_connection or mt_restore which might also involve removal).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing session), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like mt_list_sessions (to identify sessions) or mt_restore (which might involve session handling).

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