marrow_session_end

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the important side effect of optionally auto-committing open decisions and the purpose of preventing orphaned decisions. However, it does not clarify what happens if autoCommitOpen is false or whether the session end is irreversible, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then add the secondary behavior. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, when to use it, and the side effect of auto-commit. It is slightly incomplete in not describing the default behavior when autoCommitOpen is false and there is an open decision.

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 already describes the parameter with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining why the flag exists ('Optionally auto-commits any open decision' and 'Prevents orphaned decisions'), which enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('end') and resource ('current session'), and additionally mentions the optional auto-commit behavior, distinguishing it from other tools like 'marrow_commit' that only handle commits.

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?

It provides a clear use case: 'when an agent finishes a task', which communicates the intended context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., when to use 'marrow_commit' instead of setting autoCommitOpen), so it lacks formal exclusions.

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