complete_session

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions marking completed and appending notes, but fails to disclose side effects like whether the session becomes read-only, idempotency, or what happens if the session is already completed. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, immediately front-loaded with the main action. It earns its place with no filler or redundancy. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and several sibling tools, the description is far from adequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or the overall session lifecycle. The context is too sparse for an agent to use this effectively.

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 vaguely mentions 'final summary/notes' but does not clarify the distinction between final_notes and completion_summary, nor explain the assistant parameter. The parameter names provide some self-evident meaning, but the description adds little beyond what the schema already implies.

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 clearly states the tool's function: marking a session completed and optionally appending final summary or notes. It uses a specific verb ('mark') and resource ('session'), and the 'completed' qualifier distinguishes it from siblings like start_session or append_progress. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_session, so it's not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_session or append_progress. The phrase 'optionally append final summary/notes' hints at a workflow step, but it doesn't clarify prerequisites, whether the session must be in progress, or exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned.

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