n2_work_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose three distinct side effects, notably that the ledger write is immutable (irreversible) and that file ownership is released. It leaves gaps on idempotency, behavior when no active session exists, and error conditions, but the core mutation profile is unusually well surfaced for its length.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the effects. No filler, no repetition of the tool name, and each clause carries a distinct fact.

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 9-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say what happens on success and what the caller gets back (entry id, session recap), plus sequencing relative to work_start/work_claim/work_log. It covers the side effects well but is thin on lifecycle position and return expectations.

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 all 9 parameters (agent, project, title, summary, todo, entities, insights, decisions, sessionId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning about how these fields are used or persisted, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('End work sequence') and enumerates three concrete effects: immutable ledger entry, soul-board handoff update, file ownership release. An agent can distinguish it from n2_work_start and n2_work_log, though it never names the counterpart tool 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?

'End work sequence' implies it closes what work_start opened, and the schema's sessionId note references work_start, so usage is inferable. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions (must a session be claimed/logged first?), and no exclusions or failure-case guidance.

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