destroy_session

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses concrete side effects: discarding namespace, objects, snapshots, releasing the worker subprocess, and that the next call transparently starts a fresh session under the same handle. It also specifies the HTTP-only context. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three sentences: first states the core action, second explains post-condition, third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence provides distinct value without redundancy.

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 destructive, zero-parameter tool, the description covers the action, the complete set of effects, the intended use case, the alternative, and the operational prerequisite. With an output schema present and strong annotations, no further details are needed.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'THIS client's' session and 'session handle' are involved, though no parameter syntax is needed. With 100% schema coverage (vacuously), the description does not need to explain any params.

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 a specific verb ('Close THIS client's CAD session') and resource ('session'), and explicitly lists consequences (discarding namespace, objects, snapshots, releasing worker subprocess). It also distinguishes itself from sibling 'reset' by clarifying that reset clears geometry while keeping the 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('when abandoning a model entirely') and when not to ('prefer reset() to clear geometry while keeping the session'). Also notes the HTTP/session-handle prerequisite, giving clear context for appropriate invocation.

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