mdan_memory_end_session

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the key side effects: counting the session, applying memory decay, and recording relationships and decision outcomes. It does not cover reversibility or permissions, but the core mutating behavior is clearly communicated.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and all key effects without repetition or filler. Every phrase—'count the session', 'apply memory decay', 'record relationships and decision outcomes'—contributes distinct information.

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?

The description is adequate for selecting the tool and understanding its main effects, but it omits details an agent may need for reliable invocation, such as what a successful closure returns and what 'count the session' concretely produces. Since there is no output schema, some of that burden falls on the description, which it does not fully meet.

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 0%, and the description only loosely refers to 'participating agents' and the relationship/decision data involved. It does not explain the required structure of each agent entry, the meaning of the enum values, or how to supply the data, leaving the schema to do essentially all parameter-level work.

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 and resource: it clearly states that the tool closes a session for participating agents, and it lists the concrete operations involved: counting the session, applying memory decay, and recording relationships and decision outcomes. This makes it distinguishable from siblings like mdan_memory_remember, mdan_memory_forget, and mdan_create_decision_record.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as mdan_memory_remember or mdan_create_decision_record. The phrase 'Close a session' only implies end-of-session usage; it does not state exclusions or recommend alternatives.

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