palinode_session_end

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing it writes to today's daily notes and appends status to project files. It doesn't mention commit/push behavior, but the schema's push parameter covers that, and the description does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and core action, then side effects, then user guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 sufficient for a session-ending tool with 7 parameters, given that the schema covers all parameter details. It explains the main side effects and what the user should provide, though it could mention the optional dry_run for testing but that is covered in the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a brief mapping by mentioning 'accomplished, decisions made, and any blockers' to summary/decisions/blockers, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for parameters like push, source, or dry_run.

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 writes a session summary and appends status to project files, giving a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like palinode_save, relying on the name and title for 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 explicitly says 'Call at the end of a coding or chat session', which is a clear temporal trigger. It does not mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is unambiguous.

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