terminal_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals non-obvious behavior: it only targets the production session namespaceĺ and deliberately works even when the device is absent from the active topology. It does not mention result/error behavior, but the key operational limits are disclosed.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the action is stated first, followed by a critical exclusion and a useful stale-session edge case. Slightly wordy in the third sentence, but every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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 tool with no output schema incl, the description covers target, scope, and an important edge case. It does not explain success/error responses or whether an open session must exist, but an agent can generally invoke the tool correctly with the provided information.

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 only parameter, device, is minimally described by the schema. The description clarifies that the device owns the session being closed, but it does not specify the identifier format or where to source it. With 0% schema coverage, this is only partial compensation, though reasonable for a single string parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Close a device's managed production terminal session.' It also immediately distinguishes itself from related terminal tools by scoping to the production session namespace and explicitly stating it cannot affect validation sessions.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: closing production terminal sessions, including stale sessions from before a topology change. It also states what it cannot do (affect validation sessions), which helps an agent avoid misusing it, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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