grok_agent_session_end

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states that suggest_issue returns a scrubbed draft and does not auto-create an issue, but it does not disclose what ending a session does to session state, job state, cleanup, or whether the operation is irreversible.

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 short and usefully leads with the receipt contract, and the second sentence adds an important side-effect caveat. However, 'Session Protocol v1.2' and the compacted field names are cryptic, making the description concise at the expense of clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a 0% parameter-description coverage, an ending operation needs substantially more context. The description does not state preconditions such as having a valid session_id, what cleanup or termination occurs, or how this relates to sibling session lifecycle operations.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the suggestion_issue behavior but leaves note, job_id, and session_id semantically undocumented, so three of the four parameters rely on name inference alone.

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 communicates what is returned—a short receipt with status/job/changed/tests/next—and that suggest_issue can optionally return a scrubbed issue draft. However, it never explicitly states the main action with a verb such as 'ends' or 'closes'; the core purpose is only inferable from the tool name and the protocol wording.

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 guidance on when to call this tool or when to prefer a sibling such as grok_agent_cancel, grok_agent_session_tick, or grok_agent_session_next. The only usage hint is 'optional suggest_issue,' which concerns a parameter rather than the conditions for choosing this operation.

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