abandon_live_session

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key behavior of not applying working XML, which is valuable. However, it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether session state is deleted, whether any cleanup occurs) or mention safety/irreversibility.

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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the action and key qualifier. It is concise and free of fluff.

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 simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It captures the core purpose and behavior, though it does not explain the relationship to finish_live_session or the broader transaction lifecycle, which could be useful.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% because the only parameter (reason) has a description that mirrors the tool description. The tool description adds no new information about the parameter's format or semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Abandon stale local session state') and the key behavior ('without applying its working XML'). It distinguishes from siblings like finish_live_session by focusing on stale state and explicitly noting no XML application.

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 implies usage for stale sessions by using the word 'stale', but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over finish_live_session or provide alternative guidance. No exclusions or context cues are given.

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