Submit work for review

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

The description adds a critical behavioral fact beyond annotations: ending the lease. It also clarifies that the review is a separate step. Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false), so the added context of lease termination is valuable. It does not disclose all consequences (e.g., session cannot be resumed), but is decent.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. It is appropriately sized and immediately conveys the tool's function.

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the workflow prerequisites (active lease), the meaning of required fields like idempotency_key, or what happens after submission. Sibling tool names provide some context, but the description alone is inadequate 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 compensate. It only hints at 'typed result references' (output_refs) and indirectly 'result_summary'. It does not explain session_id, idempotency_key, used_steps, or used_spend_cents. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description does not provide sufficient guidance for an agent to fill them correctly.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'End the authenticated worker's lease and submit typed result references for a separate review decision.' It uses a specific verb ('end', 'submit') and resource ('lease', 'result references'), and it distinguishes from siblings like heartbeat_work_session (which extends the lease) and decide_work_assignment (which makes the review decision).

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 implies the tool is the final step after completing work, contrasting with heartbeat_work_session (lease renewal). However, it does not explicitly state 'use when work is done and ready for review' or name alternatives. The context is clear enough given the sibling tools, but explicit when/when-not guidance is missing.

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