Vibe Board VE

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 effectively describes the tool's behavior: it marks the session as 'completed', sets ended_at=now, and explains how the data flows to the next session. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits, which would be helpful 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical warnings and usage notes. Every sentence adds value: the second emphasizes importance, the third explains state changes, the fourth describes data flow, and the fifth provides parameter guidance. There is no wasted text.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's critical role, behavioral effects, and parameter semantics. However, it doesn't describe the return value format beyond '{ session_id, status, message }', leaving some ambiguity about the output structure. Given the complexity, a bit more on response handling would make it complete.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains why progress_summary and handoff_notes matter ('shown verbatim at the start of the next session's handoff'), provides usage guidance for handoff_notes ('reference task IDs... not vague descriptions'), and clarifies the purpose of context_artifacts ('structured context' with examples). This elevates the score above baseline.

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 specific action ('End the current session'), the resource involved ('session'), and the primary outcome ('with a progress summary and handoff notes'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by emphasizing its unique role in cross-session continuity, unlike other tools that handle tasks, projects, or sessions differently.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('This is the single most important call for cross-session continuity — without it, everything you did this session is invisible to the next one') and references the alternative ('The next board_create_session will surface this session's...'). It clearly states the prerequisite (session_id from board_create_session) and the consequence of not using it.

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