session_destroy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the destructive action (kill) and side effect (remove metadata), plus relevant context about tmux session longevity. However, it omits details like reversibility or confirmation requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds critical usage differentiation without any fluff, making it perfectly concise.

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 no output schema, this is largely complete: it covers the action, when to use, when not to use, and an alternative. Its only gap is not addressing expected return values or permanent termination confirmation, but the core context is well covered.

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?

The schema defines a single required string parameter 'name' with no description coverage. The tool description implies that 'name' refers to the tmux session, but it never explicitly states this mapping or provides formatting details, leaving some ambiguity for a 0% schema coverage case.

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 uses an active verb ('Kill') with a specific resource ('tmux session') and a secondary action ('remove its stored metadata'). It explicitly contrasts with session_interrupt, making the unique purpose clear.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when a task is finished') and when not to ('Do not use it to stop a slow run'), naming the alternative tool (session_interrupt). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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