Log (complete) the running session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the refusal behavior when another device owns the open segment and the force escape hatch, which is valuable beyond a simple 'complete session' statement. It also notes the splitting across touched tasks, adding detail about the side effect. It does not mention irreversibility or prerequisites, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 two tight sentences: the first states the core function, the second the key exception. No redundant phrasing or filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main action, the split-across-tasks behavior, and the force condition. It leaves some details implicit (e.g., behavior when no session is active), but these are minor given the low complexity and clear sibling context.

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 0% for the only parameter, force, but the description explains its semantics: 'force=true and the user explicitly asked' overrides the device-ownership refusal. This gives the agent enough meaning to use the parameter correctly, even though the schema only says boolean.

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 specific verb phrases 'Complete the active session' and 'write it to the ledger as one pomodoro, split across the tasks it touched,' clearly identifying the resource and outcome. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like dwt_log_pomodoro (individual pomodoro logging) and dwt_abandon_session (discarding) by focusing on session completion.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when there is an active session to complete and log. It also specifies the conditional for the force parameter – 'unless force=true and the user explicitly asked' – giving guidance on the exception. It does not explicitly reference alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to infer the primary use case.

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