goldhold_close

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that state is saved for the next session, which is useful, but it does not say whether closing is irreversible, whether the session can later be resumed/restored, what happens to existing session data, or what 'graceful' actually means. These are material unknowns for a side-effecting close operation.

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 with no filler. 'Graceful session end with summary' and 'Saves state for next session' are front-loaded and each sentence contributes meaningful information about the tool's effect.

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 session-closing tool with side effects and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. An agent still needs to know whether closing is reversible, how compact changes behavior, whether the summary is mandatory, and how this relates to sibling tools like goldhold_resume, goldhold_restore, and goldhold_checkpoint. The description lacks these details.

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 only 50%: session_summary is described in the schema, but compact has no description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond saying 'with summary', and it never explains what compact does or how the summary is used. For an under-covered schema, the description fails to compensate for the undocumented compact parameter.

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 identifies the resource and action: ending a session gracefully with a summary and saving state for the next session. It is more specific than a bare 'Close session' and conveys the outcome, though the word 'graceful' is vague and it does not differentiate from siblings like goldhold_checkpoint or goldhold_plan_close.

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 phrase 'session end' implies when the tool should be used, but no explicit guidance is given about alternatives such as goldhold_checkpoint for mid-session saves or goldhold_resume for restoring later. There is no when-not-to-use or sibling routing, so the usage context is only implicit.

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