brain_session_abandon

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which cover the destructive nature. The description adds the explicit-user-command constraint and notes that only an agent tracer session is server-managed. However, it does not describe consequences (e.g., irreversibility, impact on session data) beyond the annotation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and constraint. The second sentence adds relevant context about the agent tracer without bloat.

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 mutation tool with three required parameters and no output schema, the description is sparse. It does not explain what 'abandon' entails versus brain_session_end, what the response contains, or prerequisites beyond the schema. The annotation and schema cover only part of the operational context.

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 only 33% (only expected_client_key has a description). The tool description provides no parameter information, failing to compensate for the low coverage. An agent receives no guidance on session_id or reason beyond the schema's minimal type constraints.

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 states a clear action ('abandon a session') and resource, and adds a critical constraint ('only from an explicit user command'). It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling brain_session_end, but the user-command qualifier hints at a distinct lifecycle role.

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 guidance ('only from an explicit user command') and when-not-to-use ('no hook and no auto-close may invoke this lifecycle boundary'). It does not name alternative tools directly, but the constraint is unambiguous.

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