live_session_complete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: idempotency ('session 已是 completed 时重复调用不再改 session...回执...'), status transitions ('status → completed, awaiting_role → none, ended_at 只在首次完成时打'), evaluation overwrite semantics ('已有场评时不覆盖'), and conflict behavior. It even explains historical rule changes (2026-07-26 口径收窄), ensuring the agent knows exactly what side effects to expect.

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 dense, single-paragraph wall of text, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and every sentence carries critical operational information (required fields, learner visibility, ID policy, idempotency, preconditions, gate). It could be improved with bullets or section headers, but there is little fluff; the historical note about 2026-07-26 is slightly meta but clarifies a rule change, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 complexity (stateful session completion, optional nested evaluation, idempotency, hard preconditions) and lack of both annotations and an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers success behavior, failure modes (CONFLICT), idempotent replay details, side effects on session fields, and how to verify prerequisites. The description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly and know what to expect.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema: it emphasizes that all three REFLECT fields are mandatory and rejection occurs if any is missing, clarifies that internal IDs must never appear in the text and only belong in evaluation.evidence_refs, and explains the evaluation object's relationship to record_live_evaluation. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions, warranting a 4.

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 opens with '收课——Live 收尾的一次写作动作' (closing a session—a single writing action at the end of Live), which clearly identifies the verb (complete/finalize), resource (live session), and purpose. It also distinguishes from siblings by noting 'cancel 不受此门 (取消≠收官)' and explicitly equates the optional evaluation to a separate call to record_live_evaluation, making the tool's unique role unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: it lists prerequisites ('调用前确认——学习者最后一题已单独判过...且她已明确表态收课'), a hard gate ('必须已有学习者收课宣告...未宣告时本工具 CONFLICT 拒收官'), and exclusion ('cancel 不受此门'). It also tells the agent what to do if the learner has only verbally ended (guide them to press the bell), and references alternative tools like record_live_evaluation.

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