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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral detail: the server stores only bounded metadata and an attested outcome, which clarifies the side effects and the extent of data persistence. This goes beyond what the annotations alone convey, though it does not elaborate on failure modes or the agent's execution semantics.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action first and then provides a relevant side-effect note. While it is efficient, it could be considered slightly under-specified for such a complex tool, but that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 tool has 7 parameters, a nested object, required fields, and no output schema. The description does not explain how the parameters interact, what the expected response is, what constitutes a successful finish, or any error handling. It is far from sufficient for an agent to call this tool correctly; it leaves critical operational details unexplained.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden of parameter explanation, but it mentions none of the seven parameters. It does not clarify the meaning of required fields like idempotencyKey, expectedVersion, or the purpose of the nested 'details' object. The description provides zero parameter-level semantics, making it nearly impossible for an agent to properly construct a call.

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 a specific verb ('finish') and resource ('node work'), clearly indicating the primary action. It also adds context by noting the server stores only bounded metadata and an attested outcome, which helps distinguish it from tools like validate_node or submit_node_instruction. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide a contrast, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as start_node_work or submit_node_instruction. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool. The only contextual hint is 'connected local agent,' but that is not framed as a usage criterion.

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