End session

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

Annotations already flag this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond that: the receipt shape and the 'no auto-create' guarantee for suggest_issue (a scrubbed draft is returned, nothing is written). It still omits what ending the session actually does to state.

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?

It is compact and front-loaded, but the 'Session Protocol v1.2:' prefix is low-value jargon and the two clauses are dense shorthand rather than clearly parsed guidance. Brevity here reads more as under-specification than efficient structure.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin: it omits parameter meanings, prerequisites, and what state change ending the session causes. The receipt description helps slightly but leaves major gaps for correct invocation.

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 carry the param burden. It only partly covers one parameter (suggest_issue returns a scrubbed draft, no auto-create), while note, job_id, and session_id are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 names an output artifact ('short receipt' with status/job/changed/tests/next) and the optional suggest_issue behavior, but never states the actual action of ending a session in prose. An agent gets the verb only from the name/title, not from the description, and the 'Session Protocol v1.2' framing is opaque jargon rather than a purpose statement.

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 when-to-use guidance and no reference to the sibling lifecycle tools (grok_agent_session_begin, grok_agent_session_tick, grok_agent_session_next). An agent cannot tell from the text when ending is appropriate versus continuing with session_tick or session_next.

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