close_agent_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful side effects beyond the schema: a refund of unspent balance is computed and an immutable receipt hash is emitted, implying a consequential, effectively irreversible settlement. It still omits auth requirements, what happens to the session state afterward, and failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary action and its consequences are stated efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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 session-closing mutation with no output schema, the description usefully previews the refund and receipt outputs. However, it leaves out authorization requirements, irreversibility warnings, and error conditions, which matter for a tool that triggers a financial settlement.

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 100%, so both parameters (agent_address, session_token) are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or semantic detail about either parameter, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 ('Closes an active agent session') and enumerates the resulting effects (refund computation, settlement receipt hash), making the scope clear. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling open_agent_session, but never names the sibling or otherwise differentiates explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_agent_session_info or open_agent_session. Usage is only inferred from the word 'close' in the name.

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