rzil_destroy

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 clearly discloses the destructive nature of the operation and the resource-release side effect. It does not mention whether the session ID becomes invalid or how missing-session errors are handled, but the core behavior is 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded and the usage guidance is placed immediately after, making the purpose easy to scan and act on.

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 one-parameter cleanup tool with no output schema and no nested structures, the description is largely complete: it says what the tool destroys and when to use it. It does not describe return values or idempotency, but those are not critical for a done-with-session destroy operation.

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 single parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is already documented as the 'RzIL session ID returned by rzil_init.' The description adds no additional parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

States a specific verb ('Destroy') and a specific resource ('persistent RzIL session'), plus the resource-release side effect. It is clearly distinct from ESIL session tools like esil_destroy, though it does not name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use this when you are done with a Rizin emulation session.' This clearly tells the agent when to call it. It does not spell out when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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