stop_grab_session

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

Annotations already mark this tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying that it stops the active bridge and clears its queued selections, making the specific state-change explicit beyond the generic annotation hints.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and appends the secondary side-effect. Every word contributes meaningful information with no waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description captures the full operational effect of stopping the grab bridge and clearing queued selections. It could add notes about whether the session is permanently closed or what happens to already-captured references, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. This meets the baseline expectation for parameter-less tools, even though no additional parameter notes are provided.

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 ('Stop') and a precise resource ('current grab bridge') plus a concrete action ('clear its queued selections'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings such as start_grab_session and get_grabbed_elements.

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 phrase 'current grab bridge' implies the tool should be used when a grab session is active, and the 'clear' action signals a terminal step. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so the usage context is mainly implied.

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