mind_session_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses deprecation and removal-in-v2.0 status, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not say what actually happens when invoked (error, no-op, silent success), which matters for a deprecated mutation-style tool.

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?

Extremely tight, with the most decision-critical information (DEPRECATED and the replacement) front-loaded. Slightly fragmented across two parenthetical thoughts, but every token earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers what it does and that it should not be used. Given the deprecation, the only meaningful gap is runtime behavior on invocation, which is minor for a deprecated endpoint.

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% – both 'agent' (default 'unknown', references mind_session_start) and 'summary' are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 parenthetical '(End the active session for an agent)' states a specific verb and resource, so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It also names the replacement tool (mind_session), differentiating it from siblings like mind_session_start. The purpose is clear but subordinated to the deprecation notice, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 explicitly states the alternative (mind_session(action="end")) and the condition that makes this tool unusable ('Removed in v2.0'). This is unambiguous routing away from the tool, which is exactly the guidance an agent needs for a deprecated endpoint.

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