Living Stack: session_close

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

Annotations already signal a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful context by saying the local ledger is preserved, which clarifies that closing finalizes state without destroying evidence, but it does not disclose what happens on repeated closure or whether the session becomes immutable.

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?

A single 12-word sentence that is front-loaded with the action and consequence. It loses one point for the typographical issue (tamper-evident rendered as tamper-evident) and for not adding any word on return behavior.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It does not explain what happens to an already-closed session, whether the caller receives the ledger, or what the 'reason' influences, which an agent might need when invoking the tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so bouth parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning about valid reason values or the effect of the default 'completed', but the high schema coverage means the baseline of 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Close') and a clear resource ('proof session'), and adds a meaningful consequence (preserving the tamper-evident local ledger). It distinguishes itself from an abandon or cancel action, though it does not explicitly differentiate from a potential sibling like 'session_end'.

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?

No guidance explains when to call this tool versus any alternative, and no exclusions or prerequisities are stated. Since the sibling list is empty, the description misses the chance to say whether closing is the final step in a proof workflow or what distinguishes it from other session operations.

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