close_session

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-destructive, non-read-only, closed-world mutation. The description adds that the session is stopped and its handle released, which is meaningful context, but it does not say what happens to follow-up tool calls, whether the call is idempotent, or what occurs if the session is already gone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly terse for the scope, but every word contributes.

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 cleanup tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented schema, the definition is functionally sufficient. It omits the relationship to start_debug_session and the post-close behavior of pending handles, which would matter to an agent sequencing debug workflows.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single sessionId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its role in follow-up tools. The description adds no syntax, format, or validity details beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 pair and resource ('Stop and release an explicit process/debug session'), which an agent can distinguish from stop_project or quit_godot at a high level. However, it does not explicitly name those alternatives, so the differentiation is only partial.

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 word 'explicit' implies this applies to sessions opened via the sibling start_debug_session rather than the whole project, but usage is only implied. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance relative to stop_project, set_debug_pause, or quit_godot.

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