msf_console_destroy

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

The description contributes real behavioral content beyond the annotations – the fact that jobs/sessions survive console destruction is a consequence an agent could not infer from destructiveHint alone. It stops short of stating irreversibility or whether the console's RPC state is lost.

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, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the caveat immediately after. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what annotations cannot: the orphaned-jobs consequence. Adding the source of console_id (returned by msf_console_create) would close the remaining gap.

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds the genuinely useful behavioral caveat that background jobs outlive console destruction, but says nothing about where console_id comes from or its format, and schema coverage for the single parameter is 0%.

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 and resource ('Destroy a console by ID'), which distinguishes it from lifecycle-adjacent siblings like msf_console_create and msf_console_write. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the second sentence makes the scope of destruction clear enough to separate it from job/process kill tools.

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?

'This does not stop its background jobs/sessions' implies an agent should reach for a different tool (msf_process_signal, msf_jobs) when the goal is to terminate work, but no sibling is named and no precondition (e.g. console must be idle or already created) is stated. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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