cancel_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the tool errors on LIVE sessions with INVALID_STATE, hinting at state-dependent behavior. However, it does not detail side effects (e.g., irreversibility) or any potential cascading impacts, which would elevate transparency.

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 long. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and allowed states. The second sentence clarifies a key exclusion and error behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is complete. It covers purpose, state constraints, error condition, and provides a comparison to other handling methods. There are no gaps for the agent's decision-making.

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 input schema covers the single parameter (sessionId) with a basic description ('UUID of the Luxxon session'). The tool description adds no further detail about the parameter, such as format or constraints. Since schema_description_coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not add value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool cancels a Luxxon session, specifies valid states (REQUESTED or ASSIGNED), and distinguishes itself from handling LIVE sessions via other means. This provides a specific verb and resource, and the state constraints differentiate it from sibling tools like get_session.

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 (for pre-LIVE sessions) and when not to use it (for LIVE sessions, which require a different method). It also warns that attempting to cancel a LIVE session will result in an INVALID_STATE error, offering clear guidance on alternatives.

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