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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it discloses the freeze side effect, the refusal condition, the force bypass, and that exceptions persist and print on the report. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences front-load the core action and then give the key conditional behavior. No filler or repetition of schema parameter descriptions.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential call path: when it applies, which conditions block it, how force affects it, and what side effects persist. It leaves minor open questions like signing an already-frozen run twice, but the main behavior is covered.

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?

The input schema already covers all five parameters, so the baseline is met. The description adds consequence-level meaning for force (bypasses refusal) and for note/exceptions (they remain on the record and print), which is not fully stated in the schema.

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 opens with a specific action ('Sign off a completed run with a name and a date, which freezes it') and clearly identifies the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling run tools like run_check, run_status, or run_start, which perform different lifecycle actions.

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?

It states the tool is for completed runs and that normal sign-off is refused while required steps are unanswered or failed unless force is true. However, it never names an alternative tool or explicitly says when to choose something else, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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