Finish workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add context. It adds the requirement to include a one-sentence outcome summary, but says nothing about what finishing actually does — whether it closes the session, whether it can be called more than once, or what happens if no workflow is active.

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?

A single sentence with the trigger condition front-loaded and the parameter requirement second; there is no filler and nothing an agent must read past to find the actionable instruction.

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 two-parameter, zero-required-argument lifecycle tool with no output schema, the description covers the trigger and one parameter, which is close to sufficient. It is still incomplete on the status parameter and on the effects of calling, both of which an agent needs to invoke it correctly in failure scenarios.

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 both parameters. It adds real meaning for summary (one sentence, describing the outcome), but the status enum (done/failed/canceled) is never mentioned, and the framing "when you have finished the user's request" implicitly steers toward success only — leaving the failure and cancellation paths undocumented.

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 states a specific lifecycle action — signaling that the user's request is complete and supplying an outcome summary — which is meaningfully distinct from siblings like tg_start_workflow or tg_ask_user. It never uses the tool's own vocabulary ("finish workflow") to confirm it terminates the workflow, but the intent is still unambiguous.

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?

"Call this when you have finished the user's request" gives an explicit, checkable trigger condition, which is the main thing an agent needs for a terminator tool. It stops short of stating exclusions — e.g., that it should not be called mid-task or alongside tg_ask_user — and names no alternatives.

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