complete_session

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool mutates session status, but it does not state side effects, whether the previous status is overwritten, whether the session must exist, or what the response looks like. This is thin disclosure 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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. The valid status values are placed inline, front-loading the most useful information. It could afford more behavioral detail, but as written it is appropriately sized.

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 mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. An agent is left to infer prerequisites, side effects, and the meaning of request_id. It is barely sufficient for a straightforward call and weak for confident decision-making.

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 for explaining parameters. It does add meaning to 'status' by listing the accepted values, and 'session_id' is inferable from its name. However, 'request_id' is left entirely unexplained, and the default status of 'completed' is only discoverable from the schema, not described.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('session status'), and explicitly enumerates the allowed states: active/paused/completed/abandoned. This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishes it from siblings like create_session or get_session_info. The name 'complete_session' is slightly narrower than the actual behavior, but the description resolves that ambiguity.

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 implies this tool is used when a session's status needs to be transitioned, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_session or when not to use it, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the session must already exist.

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