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

Annotations indicate a write operation that is idempotent but not read-only. The description mentions 'privacy-filtered' which hints at data handling, but it does not disclose what side effects occur, whether it finalizes the session, or what happens on repeated calls. It does not contradict annotations, but it adds little beyond them.

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 single sentence but is under-specified. Conciseness should not come at the cost of clarity; here the brevity results in an unhelpful definition. It does not front-load key information and leaves critical details omitted.

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?

This is a complex tool with 10 parameters, 6 required, and no output schema. The description does not explain the tool's role in the agent session lifecycle, how to construct a valid request, what the response contains, or error conditions. It is severely inadequate for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 10%, with only the codeChanges parameter described in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning for the other nine parameters, such as outcome, blockers, decisions, expectedVersion, or idempotencyKey. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 'Update hosted finish agent session using privacy-filtered project metadata' is vague and awkwardly worded. It does not clearly state the tool's purpose or what 'finish agent session' entails, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings like finalize_agent_execution or begin_agent_execution. The phrase 'privacy-filtered project metadata' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, sequencing relative to other agent lifecycle tools, or any conditions that should trigger its use. The agent is left to infer context from the name alone.

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