session_destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety bar is partly covered. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral detail beyond the annotation: the session_id is invalidated immediately and unsaved shell state (cwd, env, background jobs) is lost. It stops short of stating whether the operation is reversible or what happens on an already-invalid id.

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 tight sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded, followed by the concrete consequences. No filler, every clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with an annotation covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description supplies the missing consequence detail (invalidated id, lost shell state). It is nearly complete, lacking only error/idempotency behavior for repeated calls.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself noting the id comes from session_create. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 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 and resource ('destroy a session and free its resources') and makes the destructive scope explicit. An agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like session_create, session_restore, and session_checkpoint.

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 the tool is for teardown ('free its resources') but never states when to choose it over alternatives such as session_list or session_restore, nor any prerequisite like completing work first. Usage is inferable from the destructive framing rather than explicitly guided.

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