create_status_sessions_terminate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the operation's mutating nature is clear from structure. The description adds useful context by noting that the reason is 'typically displayed in the client,' but it does not elaborate on termination side effects or idempotency behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, endpoint, and parameter explanations. Every line earns its place without redundant filler. The Markdown reference for session_id sourcing is useful and structurally tidy.

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 simple two-parameter mutation with an output schema and no nested objects, the description covers the essential invocation details: what the tool does, the endpoint path, and the meaning of both inputs. The notable gap is the lack of usage guidance relative to sibling termination/delete tools, but this is mostly captured under usage_guidelines.

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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters. It tells the agent where session_id can be found in the Session element and clarifies that reason is the user-facing explanation, which meaningfully supplements the bare 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 opens with 'Terminate a session,' which clearly states the action and resource, and the included POST path identifies the exact endpoint. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling delete_livetv_sessions_by_session_id, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delete_livetv_sessions_by_session_id or list_status_sessions. It only explains where to find the session_id, not the conditions under which this termination endpoint should be preferred.

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