End remote chat mode

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing side effects: the session handle stops working, conversation history remains intact, the thread is not deleted, and double-calling is harmless. It aligns with idempotentHint and refines destructiveHint by clarifying that the session state is destroyed but not the underlying data, so there is no contradiction.

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 compact, well-ordered paragraph that front-loads the primary action, then explains effects, data safety, idempotency, and usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or fluff.

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 stop tool with one parameter and no output schema, it thoroughly covers behavior, side effects, data preservation, and when not to use it. The only minor gap is that it does not state the return value of bridge_stop itself, though it explains the asynchronous return of bridge_await, leaving the invocation context sufficiently clear.

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 only parameter 'session' is fully documented in the input schema with a detailed description about routing and isolating conversations. The tool description references 'session handle' but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 begins with 'Ends remote chat mode for THIS conversation' – a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like bridge_start, bridge_send, and bridge_await. It also details concrete effects (daemon stops polling, in-flight waits return 'stopped'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it when the user says they are done' and a clear negative case: 'not in response to a timeout from bridge_await'. It also points to bridge_start for resuming, offering a direct alternative.

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