never4ga_wrap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: "It writes nothing but the log" scopes the write precisely, and the idempotency rule (wrapping twice updates one document; a re-passed title replaces and renames the file) is detailed behavior no structured field provides. It omits permissions/auth requirements, keeping it short of a 5.

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 key action is front-loaded, but the second sentence is an overlong, convoluted run-on ("with the question whether it changed anything they assert") that costs more reading effort than the information it delivers. The final idempotency sentence pulls its weight.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description explains the single side effect and summarizes what is reported back (decisions, memories, work items, context documents). Return semantics are adequately conveyed; only auth/permission context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates what the schema already documents for title and into (retitling/renaming, archived-workspace case) rather than adding syntax or format details beyond it.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: "Close a session" and "write the one activity log it leaves behind." That distinguishes it from siblings like checkpoint or context_startup, though the trailing clause about reporting declarations is wordy enough to dilute the core action. No sibling is named explicitly.

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 by "Close a session" – an agent can infer end-of-session timing, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance (e.g. checkpoint vs. wrap) and no stated prerequisites. The idempotency note helps but is behavioral, not routing.

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