clear_privacy_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool waits for active operations and releases mapping references, but it does not clarify destructive consequences, idempotency, permission needs, or what happens when no session_id is supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It presents the sequence of waiting, invalidating, and releasing in a compact, readable form.

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?

The core session-clearing behavior is described, and the output schema handles return values. But for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented optional parameter default, the description is incomplete on session selection and destructive/error behavior.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate for the single optional session_id parameter. It only refers to 'the session' and never explains how session_id selects a session, what the empty default means, or whether an omitted value clears the current session.

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 concrete actions: wait for active operations, invalidate the session, and release mapping references. This clearly identifies a privacy-session teardown operation distinct from masking and session-creation siblings, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the lifecycle operation: an agent can infer this is for clearing a session rather than creating one or masking data. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative tool comparisons.

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