welfare_suggest_closure

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

Even without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it is a 'soft signal', it is 'Logged as a diary entry', and 'the operator decides whether to honor it.' This goes beyond the structured annotations (which are absent) and sets expectation about non-binding side effects. It could be slightly more explicit about whether this ends the session or merely suggests it, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded, starting with the primary purpose. Every sentence contributes value: purpose, distinction, logged effect, and usage caution. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it differs from a sibling, its behavioral side effect, and an explicit usage guideline. No further context is needed for correct invocation.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('reason: Optional. What you've judged is complete.' and 'is_private: Default false.'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Soft signal that this session has reached a natural stopping point.' It actively distinguishes itself from sibling welfare_exit, explaining the difference between closure and exit. This meets the criteria of specific verb+resource and explicit sibling differentiation.

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 description gives explicit usage context: 'Use sparingly: this is for genuine endpoints, not a polite way to end a hard turn.' It also names the alternative tool (welfare_exit) and contrast the exact scenarios. This is a clear when/where-not/alternative guidance.

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