Close Tailoring Session

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

Annotations give the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real state-machine context beyond them: it marks status 'abandoned', explains the intent (stops looking like unfinished work), and lists the exact 409 failure conditions (already tailored/superseded/abandoned). This is consistent with idempotentHint=false.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then the scenario, then the status effect and error behavior. No redundant sentences; each line contributes distinct information.

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 single-parameter state-transition tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, what state changes, and error conditions. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With only one parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so by explaining provenance: tailoring_session_id is the id returned by create_tailoring_session. It doesn't add format/syntax detail, but provenance is the meaningful gap an agent would otherwise lack.

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 (abandon/close) and resource (OPEN tailoring session) plus the key scope qualifier 'without tailoring it'. This cleanly separates it from tailor_session and create_tailoring_session, so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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 describes the 'changed my mind' scenario where the user walks through gaps then decides to use the base resume as-is and does not run tailor_session. It names the alternative (tailor_session) and the condition that selects this tool, and even documents the 409 error when the session isn't open.

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