discard_session

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states 'revert all in-memory changes by restoring baseline content,' which is clear about the core action. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the session is permanently removed or if the session ID must be valid, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, zero wasted words. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the action, the second gives usage context. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose and a usage condition. However, it lacks details about post-discard state (e.g., session reuse), error handling for invalid IDs, or any prerequisites. Slightly incomplete.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions). The description does not elaborate on the session_id parameter beyond its name, so it adds no semantic value. For a tool with a single parameter, the description should clarify what session_id represents or where to obtain it.

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 verb 'discard' and resource 'simulation session', and explains the effect: reverting in-memory changes by restoring baseline content. It also provides a usage condition, distinguishing it from related siblings like commit_session or create_simulation_session.

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 says 'Use when simulation results show the changes would introduce errors,' providing a clear trigger. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives like commit_session, but the condition is sufficiently specific.

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