destroy_kasm_session

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

The word 'permanently' effectively communicates that the operation is irreversible, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name. However, with no annotations, it omits other relevant consequences such as whether running processes are killed or whether the action fails under certain session states.

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 one short sentence, front-loads the key verb, and contains no filler. It is maximally concise while still conveying the destructive permanence.

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?

A destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations needs more context about consequences, errors, or prerequisites. The description only states the action and does not cover return behavior, failure conditions, or relationship to pause/resume.

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?

There is zero schema description coverage and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The single parameter 'kasm_id' is reasonably self-explanatory, but the tool description does not confirm that a session ID is required or describe how it should be provided.

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 uses a specific verb ('destroy') plus a clear resource ('Kasm session'), and the word 'permanently' sharply distinguishes it from pause/resume operations. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use destroy versus pause, resume, or other sibling tools. An agent is left to infer the operational context without any explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use cues.

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