broker_close_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the action's scope, timing, and safety boundary (does not affect shared upstreams or other sessions). It does not mention idempotency or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter close/cleanup operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no wasted words. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the exclusion of shared/other sessions adds meaningful guidance without redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers what the tool does, when to invoke it, and its boundary conditions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description already explains that the broker derives session identity from transport metadata and accepts no user arguments. The description does not need to add parameter details, so the baseline of 4 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?

The description names a specific verb ('Release') and a specific resource ('broker-owned per-session upstream processes') scoped to the current client session. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling tools, which cover calling, describing, searching, and status checks.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: after shutting down a client session when session-scoped MCP subprocesses must exit promptly. It also states what the tool never does, which serves as an exclusion, clarifying that it is not for stopping shared upstreams or other sessions.

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