session_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key destructive trait: discard=true deletes the temporary XCF and history. It does not state the default outcome when discard is false (session closed but artifacts retained), nor reversibility or permission requirements, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then the conditional flag behavior. No wasted words, though it is terse to the point of under-specifying for a mutation 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter schema coverage, the description should do more to pin down the default close behavior and its place among the session lifecycle siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for 'discard' (deletes temp XCF and history), but adds nothing for session_id, which is only self-evident from its name.

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 and resource ('Close a session'), which is unambiguous against siblings like session_open and session_create. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with lifecycle siblings such as session_undo or session_info, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives conditional behavior for the discard flag but no guidance on when to close a session versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g. must the session be active, does saving happen first). Usage is only implied.

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