gemini_end_image_edit_toolEnd an active image editing session by session ID, freeing resources and cleaning up the session.
End an image editing session and free resources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | The session ID to end. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says resources are freed, but does not disclose whether session state/history is destroyed, whether the call is idempotent, what happens on an unknown session_id, or whether errors occur – significant gaps for a teardown 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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and side effect lead. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a resource-teardown tool.
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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple (one required param). What is missing is post-call state behavior, but for this complexity level the description is largely sufficient.
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 100%, so the single session_id parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for high coverage applies.
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 ("End") and resource ("image editing session"), plus the side effect of freeing resources. It clearly contrasts with the start/continue edit siblings by name, but doesn't explicitly reference them.
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 implied – call this to close out a session started by gemini_start_image_edit_tool – but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. The agent must infer that this complements start/continue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.