close_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two behavioral modes and that force terminates the process tree, which is meaningful destructive-action context. However, it omits whether closure is reversible, what happens to session state/history, and any permission requirements.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Both modes are presented in one clause each, so nothing needs trimming and nothing important is buried.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description should carry more weight for a terminating operation. It covers the force/graceful distinction but says nothing about post-close state, errors on an already-closed session, or what the caller receives back.

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%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents the 'force' parameter by describing the graceful-vs-force-kill branch and confirming graceful is the default behavior. 'session_id' is left unexplained, though it is self-evident from the name and the required field.

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 ('close') and resource ('warm session'), plus the alternate mode ('force-kill its process tree'). An agent can distinguish it from open_session, list_sessions, and session_turn. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead in ambiguous cases, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you close a session when you no longer need it, and choose force when graceful shutdown is insufficient. There is no statement of when not to use it, no prerequisites (e.g., session must be active), and no routing to alternatives such as cancel_job for jobs versus close_session for sessions.

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