kin_session_end

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'release what it holds,' which hints at session-state teardown, but says nothing about what specifically gets released, whether in-flight transactions are affected, or error behavior.

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 the action front-loaded and the trigger condition second; zero filler. Slightly terse for the amount of behavioral surface a session-teardown tool has, but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and when to call it. Minor gap: no note on interaction with sibling session/transaction tools, which the adjacent siblings would suggest is relevant.

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 a single required parameter (session_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('Close this session') and adds what the action does ('release what it holds'), which is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like kin_session_start or kin_session_heartbeat. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

'Call it when your work is done' gives a genuine trigger condition, so usage is more than merely implied. However there is no when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives (e.g. heartbeats, transaction commit/abort ordering), leaving cross-tool routing to inference.

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