end_sdac_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the session lifecycle (the 409 until closed) and implies a financial settlement, but does not explicitly state irreversibility or that it is a mutating action. The payment-signature flow is explained in the schema, not the description.

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 short sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. No redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage timing, and a key behavioral consequence. Without an output schema, it would benefit from stating what the response contains (e.g., final cost or confirmation), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the already-rich schema.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it references session_id implicitly via 'session' but does not elaborate on any parameter. The schema descriptions are already detailed, especially for payment_signature.

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 states a specific action ('End a simulation session and settle its accumulated cost') with a clear resource and effect. It distinguishes from the sibling create_sdac_session by explicitly noting the 409 conflict until the session is closed.

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?

It says 'Call this when you are done' and explains the consequence of not doing so (create_sdac_session returns 409 SESSION_EXISTS). This provides clear when-to-use guidance and implies the alternative (creating a new session) is blocked until this is called.

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