Destroy a persistent ESIL emulation session and release all associated resources. Use when the emulation session is no longer needed to prevent memory leaks and free system resources.
Destroy a persistent ESIL session and release its resources. Use this when you are done with an emulation session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ESIL session ID returned by esil_init |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that destruction occurs and resources are released, which are the key behavioral consequences. It could add that this is irreversible, but 'destroy' strongly implies that.
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 with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word serves a purpose.
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 cleanup tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what happens. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that session_id is the ESIL session ID returned by esil_init. The description adds no additional parameter context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles it fully.
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 verb ('Destroy'), a specific resource ('persistent ESIL session'), and the outcome ('release its resources'). This clearly distinguishes it from other session-related tools like esil_step or rzil_destroy.
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 says when to use it: 'when you are done with an emulation session.' It does not discuss when not to use it or explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is clear enough for this cleanup operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.