destroy_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "Kill" implies an irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about whether processes inside the session are terminated, whether the operation is idempotent, what errors occur for a missing session, or what permissions are needed.

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 four-word sentence with zero filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of being thin, but there is no wasted structure to penalize.

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?

This is a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no stated side effects or failure modes. For a kill-style tool, an agent needs to know what is destroyed and what happens on an invalid session_id, none of which is covered.

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% and the single session_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from create_session. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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 ("Kill") and resource ("tmux session"), which is enough to separate it from siblings like kill_process or create_session. It does not explicitly name those siblings or clarify the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as kill_process, nor any prerequisite (e.g., session must exist, must have been created by create_session). Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the schema's reference to create_session.

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