shutdown_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the destructiveness scope — all terminals plus the session are closed — which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, what happens to running processes, whether the session must exist/be idle, or any permission requirements.

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 verb and scope, with no filler. It is efficiently sized for a one-parameter tool, though for a destructive operation the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure concision.

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 explained. The remaining gaps are the ones that matter most for a destructive, annotation-free tool: usage context, irreversibility/side effects, and error behavior when the session name is unknown.

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 required parameter, so the description must compensate. 'Of a session' only loosely ties session_name to the target; it adds no format, naming convention, or lookup hint (e.g., whether the name comes from list_sessions).

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 ('Close') and resource ('every terminal of a session and the session itself'), making the blast radius explicit. It is distinguishable from siblings like interrupt or restart_terminal, but it never names or contrasts with them, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as interrupt (stop work but keep session) or restart_terminal (recover instead of tear down). The agent must guess whether shutdown is the right escalation versus those siblings.

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