n2_mimir_study_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one valuable trait — 'Restart-safe retry' signals the call is re-entrant/idempotent — but it omits whether the freeze is irreversible, what happens when the study session does not exist, and what permissions or side effects apply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by scope exclusions, with no filler. The exclusion clause is slightly cryptic in isolation but still parses as a scope boundary rather than padding.

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-style tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the definition is thinner than the complexity warrants. It covers purpose and one behavior (restart-safe) but says nothing about the result of a freeze or how sessionId is obtained.

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?

All three parameters (agent, project, sessionId) have zero schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Cross-project' hints that project scopes the operation, but sessionId and agent are never explained — an agent cannot tell whether sessionId must come from n2_mimir_study_start or what agent is used for.

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 pair ('Freeze and save') against a specific resource ('study reports'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling adders/starters (n2_mimir_study_add, n2_mimir_study_start). It does not name those siblings directly, but the explicit exclusion list ('no digest, cross-project merge, voting or graduation') carves out a narrower scope than the bare name would imply.

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 negative clause tells the agent what this tool will not do, which implicitly routes digest/merge/voting/graduation work elsewhere. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to call it (e.g. after n2_mimir_study_add, at end of a study session), and no stated prerequisites such as needing a sessionId from n2_mimir_study_start.

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