deleteSimulatorSession

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries behavioral transparency. It discloses that deletion disconnects attached apps/browsers, that apps with baked EXTENTOS_SESSION_URL need rebuilding, that session churn leaves stale device registrations, and that the tool is idempotent returning alreadyGone: true. These are critical behavioral traits beyond the simple 'delete' semantics.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place for a destructive tool. It front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers usage, warnings, workflow, costs, and idempotency. The structure is logical and dense without redundancy, making the length appropriate.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: preconditions, consequences, workflow position, side effects, and return behavior on already-gone sessions. It explains the persistent-sim model and why one-call force-fresh doesn't exist, giving the agent a complete mental model.

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 schema has one required sessionId with no description, and the description does not explicitly explain the parameter. However, the single parameter's meaning is self-evident from the tool name and context; the description reinforces that sessionId identifies the session to retire. Since it is a simple string with minLength, the lack of explicit parameter detail is not a significant gap.

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 'Retire a simulator session on purpose,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from createSimulatorSession by stating that delete is only for rotating to a new session identity, and explicitly contrasts the delete-and-mint flow with the resume model.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use instructions: 'USE only when you genuinely need a NEW session identity' and 'DON'T USE to clean up or start over.' It names the alternative (createSimulatorSession) and explains the intended two-step rotation process, providing unambiguous decision criteria.

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