unexpose_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully disclose idempotent behavior ('succeeds as a no-op if not exposed') and an important destructive side effect (disconnecting IDE clients). It does not cover permissions, error cases, or return behavior, so it stops short of full 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action before the idempotency caveat. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the effect and no-op guarantee are covered, but parameter meaning and error/return behavior are absent. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and the description never mentions sessionId or its expected format/source. It must compensate for the coverage gap and does not, leaving the single parameter entirely defined by the bare schema type.

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 (the session's DAP mirror endpoint), plus a concrete side effect (disconnecting attached IDE clients). It is implicitly the inverse of the sibling expose_session, so an agent can place it immediately.

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 only implied: the no-op note tells you it is safe to call regardless of state, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing or reference to expose_session as the counterpart. It does not state prerequisites or when to prefer an alternative.

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