end_edit_session

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

The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals mutation, and the description adds specific behavioral details: it invalidates previews and closes the active session. This provides useful context beyond the annotation and does not contradict it.

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 concise sentence with two clear actions. No filler or redundant phrasing. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, one required parameter, and existing annotations, the description provides sufficient information. It does not specify return values, but no output schema exists, and the tool's effect is clear. However, it could have mentioned that unapplied patches are discarded, which is a slight gap.

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 has one parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'the active edit session' but does not explicitly explain that editSessionId is the identifier for that session. It provides minimal added meaning, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs 'Invalidate' and 'close' targeting 'previews' and 'active edit session', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like begin_edit_session and apply_memory_patch. It leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or provide alternatives. The context implies it is used to end an edit session, but no direct guidance is given. This is acceptable but minimal, warranting a 3.

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